I think this back and forth is going nowhere, so I'll summarize what I'm trying to say and back off.
I tested INFI several years ago that was optimized for cutting by both heat treat and geometry, and it did worse than D2 by a significant margin, over 20% IIRC. By extension, it will do even worse against M390, CPM M4, CPM S90V, etc. Just reference this:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...based-on-Edge-Retention-cutting-5-8-quot-rope
Now people are arguing that regular INFI blades (not optimized by heat treat or geometry) have a standing offer to beat anyone else in live competition. 3000 cuts or so. That's why I keep calling it a stunt - like someone walking into Gold's gym and loudly challenging everyone to beat his 50 bench press, or else they're scared. The powerlifters will laugh and go back to their workout.
When I bring this up, then the argument is that it's a bunch of tests, and an all-around "best" steel. Yet the testing referenced is a guy in a hockey mask beating on a knife with a sledgehammer or someone throwing their knife into a target.
Independent 3rd party testing to industry standards would answer all of these arguments. There are standard tests that can be done, and yes, they are expensive. So if the goal is to prove the strength and toughness of a steel, it's actually pretty easy to do. And a "big dog" in the knife industry has access, I'm sure, to these testing facilities, as well as the capital.
If the goal is marketing, or to create noise, then the mission has been accomplished. All this arguing doesn't prove anything one way or the other, it's all opinion and anecdotal evidence.
If you want to disagree with the above, fine, design your own testing and have at it. It is incumbent on the people making the claims to provide the evidence. But when opinion is presented as fact, don't be surprised when you are challenged.
All of the above is my opinion. Feel free to disagree, but provide a good argument.