Ok, that's nice to know. I know my initial comment probably came off as the stereotypical Hacker News sneer, but in my defense the picture, at least to me (having not used Atom for more than four years due to its poor performance when I tried it in the beta) makes it look like Atom was having issues maintaining a decent frame rate for the editing task shown, and is now able to provide this.
Or, to put it another way: your depiction in the article really makes it easy for those who have reservations about using Atom to come to the wrong conclusion, and it's not one that paints it in a good light. Might I suggest replacing it with a GIF that showcases the actual issue that this release was supposed to fix?