freedquaker said:
I am aware that not everything scales linearly. Just like pushing 2.25x times many pixel does not necessarily require 2.25x horsepower. But also it's true that 10x theoretical performance does not necessarily give this kind of performance in real life. Things are oversimpliefied as I stated initially. So they are not exactly accurate in "absolute" terms but "relatively" they seem to make sense. Just like the performance differential between XB1 (6x) and PS4 (10x) seems to make perfect sense even if it is rough on the edges. Sometimes, it's best to simplify things, a phenomenon that I run into, each and everyday. When you try to address every little bit of detail, a) It costs you to too much time and effort b) Things tend to cancel each other out, and the end results don't drastically differ from the simplified ones c) Unnecessary detail leads to unbalancing issues; where you represent one side precisely and accurately while other unaddressed points are left uncovered or oversimplified, which turns out to yield worse results...
I am an economics professor, and I can tell you wholeheartedly that the best economic models are usually the simplest yet intiutive ones. The more complicated ones tend to produce either flat-out worse results or the benefits associated with them are so tiny that it's not worth the extra cost and effort. This usually applies in COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS though, rather than ABSOLUTE PRECISION. |
But your simplication is just wrong. This doesn't translate nearly to actual performance because of so many other facts (10x is a strange number and we are not told in which way it was measured) like programming, dev-tools, other chips involved, improvement of algorithms, unknown bottlenecks and so on and this is without just arguing the scaling not being linear.
But as I see you are coming from economics: please go on with this 
No offense but it made me laugh 
