- Nov 15, 2010
- 8,115
- 0
- 71
Oh personal attacks, nice touch.
There was nothing ignorant about my comment, I was aware of the performance per watt increase. My thoughts were it didn't mean anything, can't you figure that out? First off the cost difference to run is nothing, secondly the 470/480 were the worst performance per watt 40nm chip released (probably because of the high leakage that they had to accept just to get something out).
Improving on a flawed (performance per watt) design which was performing poorly in that area because they had to rush it out isn't impressive.
You've been talking to too many AMD people, performance per watt on a performance desktop is like putting E85 in a race car. Sure it's nice, but it's not a factor.
There was nothing ignorant about my comment, I was aware of the performance per watt increase. My thoughts were it didn't mean anything, can't you figure that out? First off the cost difference to run is nothing, secondly the 470/480 were the worst performance per watt 40nm chip released (probably because of the high leakage that they had to accept just to get something out).
Improving on a flawed (performance per watt) design which was performing poorly in that area because they had to rush it out isn't impressive.
You've been talking to too many AMD people, performance per watt on a performance desktop is like putting E85 in a race car. Sure it's nice, but it's not a factor.