You sound like you're arguing that perf/$ scales linearly across GPU lineups. This has
never been the case. Except for the very low end, where value is always terrible, you always get
far more bang for your buck in the $150-400 mid-range than anything above. I mean, just look at the data:
Results are similar at other resolutions, though more expensive GPUs "improve" at 4k. As for value increasing as you drop in price: just look at the 5600 XT compared to the 5700 XT in those charts. Same architecture, same generation,
same die, yet the cheaper card delivers significantly higher perf/W than the more expensive one.
As for your comparison: you're comparing across generations, so any value comparison is inherently skewed to the point of being invalid. If it weren't the case that you got more bang for your buck in a new generation, something would be
very wrong. As it admittedly has been for a couple of generations now, and the 3080 hasn't fixed it either, just brought us back closer to where things should be. It is absolutely to be expected that all future GPUs from both manufacturers at lower points in their product stacks will deliver significantly better perf/$ than the 3080. That's the nature of premium products: you pay more for the privilege of having the best. $700 GPUs have
never been a good value proposition.
We're literally a week post launch. Demand has been crazy, scalpers with bots have run rampant, and everything is sold out. Give it a while to normalize before you comment on "real-world" prices. And while Nvidia's previous "here's the MSRP, here's the somehow premium, but also base-line FE card at a premium price" shenanigans and the near-nonexistence of cards at MSRP, to be fair to them they seem to have stopped doing that this time around.
Right. As if I ever said that. Maybe actually read my post? Nice straw man you've got there.
Again: accounted for, if you had bothered to actually read my post.
Let me refresh your memory:
What I'm saying here is that
the SoC TDP only accounting for 50% of the PSU's rating, which might include PSU losses due to efficiency sounds a bit low. I'm asking you to source a number that you're stating as fact. Remember, you said:
No source, no mention that this is speculation or even anything beyond established fact. Which is what I was asking you to provide.
Unsourced, based on rumors and speculation. The page says as much.
That is at least a correlation, but correlation does not mean that the rumor you are quoting as fact is actually true. This is what you call
speculation.
And here is the core of the matter: you are repeating rumors and "what you think is likely" as if it is indisputable fact. It is of course
entirely possible that the PS5 SoC has a TDP somewhere around 175W - but you don't have any actual proof of this. So
please stop repeating rumors as if they are facts. That is a really bad habit.