88 comments and nobody has noted that the article itself looks like AI slop?

Lots of signals here: the writing style, bland and wishy-washy use of statistics, bullets and formatting that arbitrarily organize without adding value, the rule-of-threes clauses, and redundant details, the intro summary list, the lack of sourcing links, and "written" by an author whose bio specifically mentions AI.

I specifically looked for backup to the assertion about higher FPS and it's just a random unsourced percentage. Maybe it's true but this article has no value as a source.