Even if true for M1 Macs, it will still invalidate the benchmarks because it's not an objective comparison
edit: so i get downvoted for commenting that a benchmark needs to control external variables (like emulation vs native) in order to get a valid comparison of the underlining hardware? Never change apple fanboys, never change!
The dispute between what makes a fair benchmark is because the of the question of whether it's fair to test the M1 Ultra from the single deployment it's available in (with its fixed OS, API support and therefore required emulation for many use cases), or whether you can come up with some test that somehow tests the M1 Ultra in isolation.
Until either Asahi/Windows support for M1 gets further along, there are more M1 Ultra equipped machines, or more workloads get ported to Apple native (either because there's incentive enough despite the difficulties Apple introduces, or because Apple reduces those difficulties), it's hard to have an apples-to-apples comparison of the M1 Ultra vs 3090.
I fall more to the camp that we have to evaluate the package of the Mac Studio as presented for now. Especially as it's not like Apple is going to sell this standalone, so the only other deployment in the near future is a likely M1 Ultra Mac Pro. This means it can have the advantages (lower power draw, OS specifically optimised for it) and disadvantages (emulation for common workloads) that come with that.
edit: so i get downvoted for commenting that a benchmark needs to control external variables (like emulation vs native) in order to get a valid comparison of the underlining hardware? Never change apple fanboys, never change!