This article is infuriatingly bad. First off, I don't doubt for a second that Apple has over-egged the performance of the M1 Ultra's GPU – or has, at least, se

This article is infuriatingly bad. First off, I don't doubt for a second that Apple has over-egged the performance of the M1 Ultra's GPU – or has, at least, selected performance indicators which aren't totally representative of common workflows. It's important that we have reviews that make it clear that this is the case and look at more useful numbers. But this article is a terrible example of doing that. It's just a republishing of minimal benchmark results from another outlet, but without even the tiny amount of analysis that was conducted there. Even the original article gives us close to no information about the scope or setup of this testing, and proceeds to draw conclusions that are suspect at best – for instance, there's a <20% gap in 1440p "Shadow of the Tomb Raider" framerate between the Ultra and the RTX3090 – not mentioning that this is a game that's running under Rosetta – and no 4K comparison, which is the only one likely to be GPU-bound. More importantly, the actual benchmark results are clearly and obviously wrong, with the numbers for 1080p and 4k performance being switched (unless graphics cards magically now render faster at higher resolution). The Verge has fixed the original, but how can you realistically quote these numbers and make a judgement on them without noticing this? Just an absolutely embarrassing indictment of the state of technology journalism.