

Unsurprising. Drivers are better than they used to be, but some of them (Nvidia) have a long way to go in terms of optimization.
More importantly, however, is the complete lack of info the article provides about their testing methodology.
-
They said they tested on SteamOS—ok, but it’s not officially available on non-handheld devices. How did they install it? Did they use HoloISO? Did they install the version meant for handhelds on a desktop PC?
-
How did they run the games? Directly through an embedded gamescope session like the Steam Deck, or through KDE Plasma, which has a compositor that can’t be disabled on Wayland. Or, did they take the double hit and run gamescope as a window within Plasma?
-
Speaking of Wayland, did they use Wayland or X? They have different performance characteristics, and it’s not negligible.
-
How many runs did they do? One-and-done, then record what the game said the average FPS was? Average of 5 runs? Were runs with outliers excluded and retested?
-
Did they pre-run the scenes to ensure the assets were cached from the disk and the shader caches were available? Did they restart the system between games? Did they restart the system between runs?
And the way they present the results are also bad:
-
They graph the FPS achieved by each platform, but they have absolutely no detail about the 1% or 0.1% lows—and at a sufficiently-high average FPS, these are what make the games feel slow and stuttery.
-
What about frametime graphs and frame pacing information? If Linux can achieve more consistent pacing at 85% of the average FPS, it would still be a better experience than having the same frame being presented repeatedly because the game missed the vblank window.
-
They didn’t try multiple resolutions to identify where the bottlenecks are occuring in each game. If a game is CPU bottlenecked by their hardware choices, it’s not a good comparison of GPU performance. Likewise, if it’s GPU bottlenecked, it’s not a good comparison for CPU performance.







It’s actually pretty easily explainable as stupidity.
They don’t actually know what being fascist entails, nor do they care to learn. They are told by conservative mouthpieces and their ilk that it means “Nazi” and they accept that as the definition.
They vehemently disagree with the idea that they’re Nazis because the general belief is that Nazis are evil, and they don’t think they’re evil like the Nazis, and therefore aren’t fascist. Even if some of them could see the parallels between their conservative nationalist beliefs and the Nazis, they would still argue they aren’t and justify it with any excuse they could find. Human egos are self-preservationist, and it’s in our nature for one to avoid viewing themselves as something they consider repulsive.
Uneducated/undereducated people who voted for him aren’t cunning. They’re just maliciously stupid, willfully ignorant, and easy to emotionally manipulate. That doesn’t mean they’re benign; in large numbers such as those enough to influence the outcome vote, they are an actual threat.
Beyond the stupid ones I mentioned above, there are the ones that willfully embrace fascism. The ones who wear “Nazi” like a badge of honor and take pride in their nationalist views. For them, I agree with you that they shouldn’t be underestimated as merely stupid.