I'm gonna say it, and you're probably gonna scream: implementation REALLY DOES matter in this discussion. What you're asking for is far too over-generalized, and very common of the "I got into audio after being into computers for a few years" trend we've seen evolve on Head-Fi. Frankly these are different worlds, and you cannot just throw all of these DAC chips up on a board and run 3DMark on them and sort the results out into some sort of "this would objectively sound better all the time no matter what" for a few reasons:
1) No such metric/measurement protocol really exists that can get at your tastes or subjective feelings. "Good" and "bad" are entirely subjective and relative terms. The kind of performance you're looking to see from GPU Boss, CPU World (I'm going to replace Intel ARK with that, since ARK doesn't actually list performance specifics), etc is entirely objective and measurable - you're looking at things like real-world measured GFLOPS, memory bandwidth, etc that have a direct and consistent relationship to performance in a given task (e.g. "it is 15% faster at running Tomb Raider than the other one") and ultimately that "better performance" (or even "better performance per dollar") is what we're subjectively analyzing as "good" or "bad" - you don't see computer hardware review websites talking about things like pride of ownership or fluffy feel-goods when comparing graphics cards, CPUs, etc they just want to know who is faster.
2) There's a pretty ferocious, and ongoing, debate as to whether or not "better" (in terms of objective metrics like SNR, THD, IMD, freq response linearity, jitter, etc) DACs can make a discernible audible difference and if so how to quantify that difference to get at things like price/performance ratios.
So basically you're talking apples/oranges here, based on a false equivalency.
There are, however, some tables of what DACs various devices have in them, the Dutch Audio Classics list is the longest one I'm aware of:
http://www.dutchaudioclassics.nl/the_complete_d_a_dac_converter_list/
Lampizator also has a list (with more in-depth reviews) of various CD player's guts:
http://www.lampizator.eu/lampizator/CD_ALPHABETICAL.html
But none of this can be linearized into "A is absolutely better than B and B is absolutely better than C" and on and on. Because that kind of comparison isn't possible, because again, we can't get at that "better" in a way that everyone will agree on (And no this isn't just "objectivist vs subjectivist" or whatever other straw-man/redunctionist/essentialist argument you want to condense it into - even among the more "engineerese" crowd (to borrow a word from Jason Stoddard/Schiit that I frankly like) there's ongoing debate).
Many manufacturers these days will disclose what chip is in their product because they're well aware of the aforesaid "I got into audio after being into computers for a few years and expect Futuremark Result Browser" trend that's developed recently - just a few years ago it wasn't common to see every CD player, every DAC, every receiver, etc listing what chips it implemented in its DAC section. As far as how useful that information is - I would say "not extremely" specifically because the implementation really does matter, and "good" and "bad" are relative and subjective terms. Things like the power supply and analog outputs can have a massive impact on noise and frequency response, and filter selection can have some pretty big impacts on performance too. And that's before you get into other aspects that frankly I wish were better talked about in audiophile circles, like ease of use, build quality, connectivity, etc.
If you're looking for more significant specs, most of the major DAC manufacturers (like AKM, TI, Cirrus, etc) have datasheets and product comparison tables on their websites, and again they'll have all sorts of qualifiers about real-world performance of these chips being heavily dependent on implementation, and most of their measurements are either the result of averaging (e.g. "we roughly gurantee that every chip is theoretically capable of X dB SNR or X% THD within operational limits") or are based on their reference circuit(s), which may not align with what a given manufacturer is doing. Correlating that information (or even measurements of real-world products, as review publications like Stereophile or Sound & Vision perform) to real-world listening is going to be equally tricky, because you're introducing additional variables (e.g. you aren't "listening to" the DAC - you're listening to the overall system which a DAC is a component of - the speakers (and their placement) or headphones (and their fit) will have a much larger influence on overall sound, but there's also other considerations like the DAC's output stage and its interaction with the input section of whatever amplifier/preamp/etc you've got (e.g. impedance bridging, gain, etc)), and you're still trying to take empiricism somewhere it doesn't want to go: telling you ultimately what you will or won't like. And that's frankly beyond the scope of empirical inquiry. "So why does this work for computer parts?!?!?!" - because everyone has basically accepted at its face that empirically measurable "faster" equates directly to being "better" and therefore those never-ending 3DMark comparisons, FRAPS benchmarking sessions, etc actually produce data that can be translated to real-world usage scenarios and help people make better buying choices. Like I said - apples to oranges in different worlds.
Getting beyond all of that, there's plenty of subjectively ranked publications that will try to say "who makes a better sounding DAC" - Stereophile has one (
https://www.stereophile.com/content/recommended-components-2017-edition-digital-processors), AudioStream has one (
https://www.audiostream.com/content/greatest-bits-digital-analog-converters), Lampizator did it with CD players (
http://lampizator.eu/lampizator/CD_player_ranking.html), and I'm sure you can find similar stuff from other review publications (e.g. What Hi-Fi, 6Moons, The Absolute Sound, etc) and on forums with a bit of searching, but again these are generally very subjective lists - they may be the result of a single person's opinions/experiences with a range of components, or the result of a group of people voting or otherwise arriving at consensus about a range of components. But in none of the cases I'm aware of should such a listing be considered absolute; the whole exercise is basically there to help you better navigate the world and form your own opinions about a very complex topic. Some things really can't just be reduced to a linear Excel graph.
