>>715099714
The issue here is that your general comparison kinda falls flat. The original poster (not me) had compared graphics in 2015 to today.
2015 was Nvidia's maxwell, pascal was 2016 and GPU wattages were pretty stable, AMD were slapping two of them on a card and still calling them the X2.
150-175W was about where we were.
Nowadays, that tier is now in the 450 > 575W zone. The x90 class and also separated out between hardware specifically used for tasks like raytracing.
When you want to invoke flops and performance as a metric, you've also got to be aware that for the last decade both GPU vendors went balls to the wall increasing limits because, yeah, technology stagnated and gains come through either node shrinks, pumping it with power or both. We've been trapped in that cycle since 2019. This is why even using the PS5 as a general metric fails, because it's 2019 technology or there abouts. In the comparison, it's closer to the date anon was claiming.
You judge graphics performance by raster, assign it a value then divide it by power consumption.
Things have improved, comparatively they've not improved that much however because we're hitting the limits for silicon.
Note that Blackwell isn't even on 2nm, it COULD be if the capacity were there.
