Wait, you're suggesting Ruby is better than Unity? This has to be a joke.
Unity employed Mike Acton a few years ago, who is now lading their transformation to a data oriented backend. They are switching everything out for a pretty well thought out Entity-Component-System (not the old Component stuff you had in unity, but a way of saving your game data in arrays of the same type for performance, instead of as objects with data that should not be together in memory). I have not kept up in the last year, but already a year ago this was showing many promising results, being able to simulate enormous amounts of agents in games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9_7QYaeNjc
Unreal and Godot have their good sides (Unreal being great for non-coders and/or if you want to an FPS, Godot being able to bind to many languages in the backend and being open source). But none of them is doing the same huge transformations in the backend as unity.
On some tiny synthetic benchmark maybe.
Come back when your engine can handle something even 1% as complex, as say, Dyson Sphere Program.
Surely Unity has more overhead and DragonRuby can make more optimizations.
(a recent example of some dots I moved) https://twitter.com/LeapJosh/status/1378056437105049603
Not saying DragonRuby isn't the bees knees, I've never used it but appreciate alternatives existing.
Despite that, sprites are the wrong facility for drawing that many dots in unity.
Per particle gravity and forces are batteries included. If you want GPU particles that can collide with other particles there's Fluvio, it's free.
Here's 65k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwzfr9ppvj4
They look like particles yes, but the intent was to show the creation of fully featured constructs (not a demonstration of "fire and forget" particles).