So....its worse than the 3 year old model and costs more money but gets the same overall rating?
The M1s were a rare instance where 92% was justified, but there's a clear intrinsic bias here.
It's like when the page for the a15 declares it's far ahead of the competition but the 2/3 benchmark averages it level pegging with SD rival, but adding geekbench skews the average. The same geekbench that puts the a14 ahead of a15 amongst its many incoherent stats..
Apple makes decent stuff, but it's nothing special, especially without touch or stylus, which apparently doesn't lose it any points against devices that are basically just as high spec and well made.
Competitors struggle enough against hyper-brand-loyalty without you guys dropping 92% scores on a rehashed chip 3 years on in a device that's no better in any notable way, actually worse in some ways, AND 20% more expensive.
It does look lush though... ;)