I usually don't like too much sensationalism, but he gets a pass. That's just his style and I think he does it well without compromising on the information content. He acknowledges that the technique is slow by the way, but that's late in the video.

But I agree that the title is poorly chosen in this case and I think it would be more appropriate for the previous video about a similar paper [1] where the simulation is less accurate, but runs in real-time. It is as if the titles were swapped.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NF3CdXkm68

Edit: And of course, it is entertainment, what did you expect of a YouTube channel covering state-of-the-art research in less than 10 minutes! If you want to get serious, read the actual paper. Short(ish) YouTube videos is simply not the right format for serious work, sensationalism or not.

I agree it doesn't have to be real-time to be valid, I think my mindset just goes to physics in video games which are usually real-time when I see contact solvers or most other things related to simulations.