Why £ per performance when we mean performance per £

[DereksDontRun]

Just a recent pet peeve, but I've been noticing more and more people use the term "pound per performance" when surely they mean "performance per pound"?

price per performance suggests a better score for a higher price or less performance, which is surely the opposite to what's intended...

I appreciate there's the price-performance ratio, which is probably the origin, but that doesn't mean "pound per performance" is a something to praise. It just makes more sense (to me) for it to be the other way around?

Or, is it another Americanism like "could care less" vs "couldn't care less"?

 

[DereksDontRun]

"pound per performance" is the opposite of "price per performance"

how so?!? pound = price, so they're the same. e.g. Item A is £5 and does 10jiggers/min, item B is £10 and also does 10jiggers/min

They both have equal performance, but item A is half the price, so has twice the performance/price as B (and also twice the performance/pound). (item A is 10/5 = 2, whereas B is 10/10 = 1). Same would go if they both cost the same, but item A did 20jiggers/min...

But... if "price per performance" is stated, then item A is half the number of B - thus my musing that "price per performance" is technically the opposite scale of what people are meaning, when trying to justify the value of the item. Generally this statement is used when trying to justify the maximum performance for the minimum cost, thus a high performance/price index (but then ironically using the opposite statement, if that makes sense). E.g. buy gpu A as it has a greater performance/price than B.

I know this is pedantry - but, as I said, a pet peeve