Go back to school. You're logic is still wrong. You can't claim linearity and then assume something esle in how to calculate the cost of what a card would give.
YOU MADE THE ASSUMPTION of a 1/50th RATIO. YOU MADE THE ASSUMPTION OF LINEARITY.
Don't do pseudo math with ratios. You can't say it is 4x performance for 2x price. It is a linear performance to price ratio between getting the Nvidia or the ATI at the prices quoted.
YOU CAN'T GO BACK AND NOW RECALCULATE IT TO 1/75th. BY DOING THAT YOU'VE JUST PROVEN IT'S NOT LINEAR.
IS IT QUADRUPLE PERFORMANCE FOR DOUBLE THE PRICE. When talking about double, triple, quadruple, etc., it is different than 100%, 200%, 300%, etc.
By definition:
Double = 100% performance gain
Triple = 200% performance gain
Quadruple = 300% performance gain
YOU CANNOT TAKE 200%/$100 & 400%/$200. It's not a 200% gain or 400% gain.
YES! We have a WINNER!!! DING DING DING! You just said it, the X1950Pro is 4x more powerful then the 6600GT! It is NOT 4x more powerful then the 7600GTS. It is NOT "double the dollars for quadruple the performance". Because the Quadruple the performance is Quadruple the 6600GT. The dollars of the 6600GT is ZERO (0), zip, nada, none, ziltch.
Exactly, 4x more powerful or 300% percent gain in performance.
It's 100% GAIN and 300% GAIN. Not 200% and 400% as you are putting it.
THEREFORE, I WILL RESTATE:
Formula = Performance Difference/Cost Difference
huh? What speudo logic math did you just do. THINK about what you just did. What are the 100% and 300% numbers you have right there? They are quite literally the "performance of 7600GTS - performance of 6600GT" and "performance of X1950Pro - performance of 6600GT".
THIS IS EXACTLY RIGHT AND THIS IS WHAT IS BEING COMPARED. EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE NORMALIZED TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE 6600GT.
So now you are creating the performance cost ratio of "performance of 7600GTS - performance of 6600GT" over the price of the 7600GTS. And "performance of X1950Pro - performance of 6600GT" over the price of the X1950Pro.
One critical thing missing from your equations. Once again your missing the point that EVERYTHING is a difference. It's a comparison between the "performance of 7600GTS - performance of 6600GT over the price of the of the 7600GTS -
price of the 6600GTS" to the "performance of X1950Pro - performance of 6600GT over the price of the of the X1950Pro -
price of the 6600GTS"
It just so happens that the cost of the 6600GT is a sunk cost and is zero masking its effect upon the above equation.
7600GTS vs 6600GT
(200%-100%)/($100-$0) = 100% PERFORMANCE GAIN/$100 = 1% PERFORMANCE GAIN PER DOLLAR SPENT
X1950Pro vs 6600GT
(400%-100%)/($200-$0) = 300% PERFORMACNE GAIN/$200 = 1.5% PERFORMACNE GAIN PER DOLLAR SPENT
YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RELATIVE CARDS THAT YOU ARE ANALYZING.
You educate people? Please, go back to grade school.
Here's two equations. y = 2x and y = x^2
Plug in the number 2. y = 4 & y = 4
Now, are these two equations the same just because one point was picked and they gave the same answer. Of course they are not. You are trying to claim the cost/performance is like the equation y = 2x and it is not. The cost/performacne is like the equation y = x^2.
Here's a plot of the performance / cost of the 3 cards.
If you took calculus you will know that if you integrate an equation and plug in the boundary conditions, you will get the area underneath the curve.
Heck, just looking at the area under the curve, you can automatically see that the area between the cost of 100 & 200 is over twice the size as the area between 0 & 100. This by itself shows that you get more performance per dollar spent for the X1950Pro than the 7600GTS.
The curve is given approximately by
y = 0.005x^2 + 0.5x + 100
Integrating you get
y = 0.005x^3/3 + 0.25x^2 + 100x + constant
Plugging in the intial conditions of cost of 100 and 0 (7600 GTS vs 6600GT)
y ~ 14167 + some constant
Plugging in the intial conditions of cost of 200 and 0 (X1950Pro vs 6600GT)
y ~ 43333 + some constant
As you can see, 43333 is roughly 3 times bigger than 14167. The difference is 29,166. The constants cancel each other out.
This means that the difference in the area between 100 & 200 and 0 & 100 is twice the size as the area between 0 & 100. Thus PROVING that you get more performance value in the X1950Pro than the 7600GTS.
If the relative performance/cost ratio were the same then the difference in the area between 100 & 200 and 0 & 100 WOULD BE THE SAME as the area between 0 & 100. As shown, it's not the same.
Once again, RELATIVE PERFORMANCE and RELATIVE PRICE is what's necessary. Everything needs to be compared back to the 6600GT.
That is the 7600GTS vs 6600GT and the X1950Pro vs. 6600GT. Then compare the final 2 answers.
You cannot take the comparison of the 7600GTS vs 6600GT and the X1950Pro vs 7600GTS then compare these results. It's comparing apples to oranges.
If my little calculus demonstration doesn't prove my point to you, go take an ECON 101 class with basic calculus.