In comparison, general relativity is one of the most well tested theories in physics, having been undergoing rigorous testing for over a century, and regardless, the point stands that the results were close to the model, thus providing evidence for the model's validity.
Newtonian gravity is good enough for that problem, and the problems have nothing to do with not understanding gravity well enough. The problems have to do with things like complex chemistry in stellar accretion disks, how grains in these disks stick to one another to eventually form rocks, and so on.
The fact that some models somewhere have problems has no bearing on whether the image reconstruction for Sgr A* is valid.
CPU performance and aerodynamics are two completely unrelated domains.
How confident are we that our current simulations accurately reproduce the universe?
Given how many unpredicted and supposedly impossible exoplanet and star configurations that keep being found, I'd say the current model is not doing so well on the prediction front.
https://www.science.org/content/article/forbidden-planets-un...