What does 2.6x slower mean? If the 5995WX scores a 100, then the M1 Ultra scores -160?
I came here to ask that exact same thing.
Listen, I'm no math genius either but this also logically means that the 5995wx is 2.6x faster than the M1 Ultra. With 100 score as a baseline for the 5995 that means the M1 would be approximately 38.4615. So effectively what is being said is that the M1 Ultra is 38.4615% the speed of the 5995wx.
So, ratios are not grammatically interchangeable in that way. That's just not how the words work. "Faster" and "slower" can't always be flipped around without changing the multiplier. It's messy.
For example: If something has the speed of "5" then it is correct that 100 is "twice as fast" as 50 and that 50 is "half as fast" as 100 (although saying "half the speed" is more clear)
100/2 = 50.
2 x 50 = 100
But say you take a ratio and you want to find what is "50% slower" or "0.5x the speed) of 10. It mostly makes sense how to turn that into math. (Anything less than 1x is slower and anything more than 1x is faster). When you're using a ratio you have to multiply.
So instead of 100/2=50 you you multiply 0.5 x 100 = 50.
So far, so good.
But take that and flip it around you want to find something "50% faster than 50", which is 1.5x because you add a 1 to represent the original's "100%" speed.
So again you multiply. (1+0.5) x50 = 1.5 x 50 = 75
You see that 100 is not 1.5x faster than 50. It is actually 2x faster.
When you flip things around you have to take the inverse of the multiplier to keep things straight (1/0.5 = 2) (1/2 = 0.5)
If M1 had a speed of 100 and AMD is 2.6x 'faster' than it. It can mean that the speed of AMD is "2.6x the speed of M1". 2.6 x 100 = 260. It can also be interpreted to mean that AMD is "260% faster" in the sense that you have to add back in the M1's original 100% speed, like in the "50% faster" example above. So AMD would be (1 +2.6) x 100 = 360. Which is important because you can't divide 360 by 2.6 to get back to 100.
But could also be the opposite way of looking at it where they messed up saying how much smaller 100 is compared to 260, you would take (100/260) which is the same as (1/2.6) = .385x (38.5% the speed)
In that case you could say that the M1 is .385x slower than AMD and people can figure it out ... But it would be a lot more clear to say that the M1 is ".385x the speed of" AMD. Or to say it as a percentage "M1 is 38.5% the speed of AMD. "
Which means they also might have meant is that "M1 is 38.5% slower than AMD" Which in itself can be interpreted as either 260 /(1+0.385) = 260 / (1.385) = 187.7 for M1
OR
260 x (1-.385) = 260 x 0.615 = 159.9 for M1
(But at this point, the relative scale is changing and things are getting out of hand. )
OR
Getting back to the original scale of M1 = 100:
There's a way of reading that "2.6x slower" may have actually
really trying to say that "AMD is 38.5% faster" than the M1: meaning 100 x (1 + 0.385) = 100 x 1.385 = 138.5 for AMD.
Which is nowhere near the original "2.6x faster".
You have to dig into the article to see the numbers and figure out what they actually meant. Some articles never actually give you the real numbers.
Is all this is really pedantic and confusing, that's my point. You should never say "faster" and " slower" when dealing with ratios and percentages. It's easy to make things unclear, and people mess it up all the time.
In this case they are saying (The Speed of M1) x (~2.6) = (The speed of AMD)