That's not the point it's trying to make, it's the point it made in the point you read up to. It then goes on to say: >Apple is doing integrated graphics, and

That's not the point it's trying to make, it's the point it made in the point you read up to. It then goes on to say: >Apple is doing integrated graphics, and 3.6 teraflops is pretty decent as far as integrated solutions go. The closest comparison would be AMD's Ryzen 7 6800U with RDNA 2 graphics. That processor has 12 compute units (CUs) and clocks at up to 2.2 GHz, giving it 3.4 teraflops. So not only is it not getting close to discrete graphics, it's basically in the same ballpark as AMD integrated graphics. It basically comes to the conclusion that it's a fine integrated solution that's about on par with other integrated graphics, but looks good compared to the last Intel Macbooks, but that's because at this point you're comparing a 2022 TSMC 5nm chip to a 2018 14nm Intel chip.