Plenty of people are working hard to tackle the performance-per-watt problem while others simultaneously tackle the absolute performance problem. There's no one

Plenty of people are working hard to tackle the performance-per-watt problem while others simultaneously tackle the absolute performance problem. There's no one single metric you can focus exclusively on that's going to satisfy everyone's use cases. Obviously not everyone needs a high-end enthusiast product like the 5090 and plenty of people are going to be seeking out a middle-of-the-road product that focuses on performance-per-watt instead, which will be accommodated by the lower-tier products in the lineup as well as their competitors' products. > Given how parallel graphics problems are, maybe it’s time to give up on 100 cores that go uber fast as behave like a space heater and move to 250 cores that go quite fast but use 1/4 of the power each. It wasn't too long ago that people were saying the same things about single-core and dual-core NetBurst CPUs and how we need to start considering dual-core and quad-core for consumer CPUs. And now we have consumer CPUs with 64 cores and more, so aren't we moving in the direction you want already? Performance-per-watt is improving, parallelism is improving, and also absolute performance is improving too in addition to those other metrics.