Performance per Watt is efficiency, not performance. It's that simple.
Heres the first hit on google
ef·fi·cien·cy [ih-fish-uhn-see] Show IPA
noun, plural ef·fi·cien·cies.
1.
the state or quality of being efficient; competency in performance.
efficiency ⊆ performance
speed ⊆ performance
performance per watt ⊆ performance
performance ⊇ any aspect of performance
You appear to be trying to assert that: "because a different word was used to describe one aspect of performance, it is not performance"
You cannot redefine what words actually mean.
Its got nothing to do with finance, or technology, and everything to do with just knowing what words mean.
You have just re-asserted what branksy said, despite that fact that his whole argument was fallacious, by using more fallacious statements.
"The only people who don't seem to understand this are scummy little weasels who work in finance." Ad hominem.
"Ask anyone who works with technology, ask on a forum such as Anandtech's CPU or GPU forum and they will tell you the exact same thing." Appeal to common sense.
"It should be blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't brain dead that performance per watt is not the same as performance." Divine fallacy
"Of course you're going to defend their moronic, biased decision, you benefited from it." Appeal to motive.
"How about we get some advice from people who live and breathe technology instead of relying on scummy little rats who live and breathe finance?" Argumentum ad populum.
Besides, that is another affirmation of the disjunct. You allege that [everyone on anandtech] says performance per watt is efficiency, therefore it is not performance. The dictionary clearly states that efficieny is in fact a measure of performance.
That leaves these two essentially identical statements:
"Performance per watt is not performance, it's efficiency."
"Performance per Watt is efficiency, not performance. It's that simple."
Again, with the presenting opinion as fact: Special Pleading, Mind Projection fallacy.
You have said nothing that warrants consideration. You present no evidence, just repeat conjecture.
MPOE posted a link to advertised performance, they are the conditions of the bet, that fact you don't like it is neither here nor there.