It's really a damn shame that AMD chose deliberately to allow Nvidia to have the most powerful GPU during the Tesla and Fermi years. That's how insane the leadership of that organization has been.
Realizing they had an advantage in performance per watt and an even greater advantage in performance per mm^2 they chose the
"Small-die" strategy that ultimated just cost them sales on the high end and damaged their mindshare into making them the "budget" company. So they leveraged their cheaper to make, faster, more efficient GPUs
only up to a certain size, conveniently (for Nvidia) only to where they got to within 15% or so of their competitor's gargantuan top end chips.
As Head1985 said, if AMD make a big GPU from 2008-2011 they would have had the performance crown for all of those years. I understand their first attempt at a mammoth GPU was a relative failure; the 2900XT didn't cut it. I understand why they made the 3870 small. But the success of the chip should have given them pause for thought, and there was no excuse for 3 more generations of deliberately tiny chips.
As it was, they only had the temporary performance crown by launching their gen first a couple times.
It's as if Nvidia in current years never bothered releasing bigger chips than their x04 line, even if Hawaii/Fiji/Vega were around. But they instead fully capitalize on their advantages, top to bottom, and take a look at those earnings.