I find this article very confusing. According to the second diagram, they get 60 fps, but it's still off by 2, which is not good, and rasterization takes almost a full frame, which I find hard to believe. In the next paragraph they say that rasterization only takes 10-20% of a frame. They say it was a data-driven decision, but I don't see any data supporting it. Even the graphs in the "Benchmarks" section use relative percentages, which tells me very little.

They should have used only ms/ns for every timing/graph, not FPS or relative percentages of whatever that was.