Not if you try to simulate the actual device under test, and not an idealized version of what it isn't. Nothing suspicious about it, they're small and noisy. Scalability is extremely hard for quantum computers, and there's distinct tradeoffs that need to be made in their engineering.

As far as I know, nobody in the industry is making absurd claims about their current offerings. That said, some claims of projected growth I've seen appear to be batshit.

And, I believe that you're wrong: Google's quantum supremacy result appears to be genuine, and IBM's refutation was, essentially, "we can use a ginormous supercomputer to match that" -- not your ordinary desktop.

46 qubits of a perfectly ideal quantum computer require a petabyte of RAM to simulate, and about 10 quadrillion—if not more—arithmetic instructions to perform a single quantum instruction.