At equal price points, the 2080 has the advantage here: more gaming oriented, consumes 70w less power, has ray tracing, DLSS, Ansel, GameWorks, VRWorks (and better VR performance overall), not to mention Variable Shading and Mesh Shading, better streaming features, supports both FreeSync and G.Sync, and it's the same price 700$.
The Radeon VII only has the 16GB advantage, that's not enough in the face of all those features that it lacks, especially now that it has no PCIe 4.0 or enough FP64 performance.
While some of those NVIDIA features may not be of interest to several people, the fact of the matter here is, they should be counted when we are comparing two products that are of the same price value.
I've been critical of RTX, and Gameworks, and don't care about most that other (and I'd expect AMD to adopt some features like probably the shading, aren't those part of some DX12 iteration too?), but AMD doesn't have much to match up now that Nvidia is enabling some support for Freesync. At least for gamers. People looking for compute got some good (but that seems to keep lessening, and by the time of launch I'll be surprised if its better than Vega 64 for those users other than in memory bound situations).
I think the RTX cards are overpriced and meh feature wise, but this makes them more appealing. I'm glad that its priced enough that seemingly they can make them and not lose money even at this price, and that there are users that are keen for this performance level even at this price point, but I hope we can move in performance and especially in perf/$.
Just a thought on "Mindshare" that is a popular term for NVDA and their dominance. I believe that is basically a Myth and ill explain why IMHO. INTC never had any incentive to lean in and use AMD dGPU's as they are also a competitor so it made more sense to go NVDA (Even when AMD had better performance nobody cared and that is why) AMD is a competitor to both companies. INTC even went so far as to license NVDA graphics so they had a strong alliance and also controlled the supply chain. For some reason the last year or so we see AMD market share actually increasing - this has nothing to do with "mindshare" either. It has to do with Ryzen - Every Ryzen CPU they sell has a higher attach rate meaning OEM's and Customers pair an AMD dGPU with it. If AMD continues to gain CPU share they will also increase GPU share due to their attach rate. AMD is pairing a CPU and GPU at much lower prices that provide very good performance - and that is really their advantage to having both. AMD's last competitive CPU was out in around 2006 and they didnt even buy ATI by then. We are just seeing the beginning of this dynamic and that is why JHH is slamming AMD so hard recently. IMHO
Eh, I think JHH has been this way for years so I don't think that's actually driven by anything other than his personality. I feel about the same as him. This is an underwhelming product and doesn't really bring anything new for AMD other than upped their highest performance some, but it comes at a cost. That its taking 16GB of 1TB/s memory combined with not exactly low power draw on the most efficient process to date, to achieve even that, well Nvidia's not gonna be worrying about it too much (doubly if the rumors about limited production run turn out to be true), since their GPUs on an older process are offering similar power consumption, aren't terrible at compute (except where they intentionally gimp them for market segmentation), and offer similar or better gaming performance, while having more feature support. And they have more software support (meaning they work with developers to provide better quality for owners of their products), are a step ahead in VR, Ray-Tracing and many other graphics focused areas.
AMD's marketshare did go up, and I'm sure attach rate, especially via OEMs played a significant role (which is why AMD has said they don't mind taking lower margins if it means substantial volume especially sustained like what OEMs tend to), but I think its simply, they had competitive products. Polaris was outright competitive and while it used a bit more power than the similar Nvidia cards, it wasn't enough to make much difference and was a step up for a lot of people either just getting into PC gaming or that were on a budget and were coming from midrange cards from like 3-5 years prior. A competitive product in the biggest market segments is of course going to lead to increased market share, even if your competitor is dominant and has a similarly competitive product in that same market segment. Same with Vega in the Ryzen APUs, it was competitive with Intel, so it was going to increase. And Ryzen of course had was competitive (gave up some areas, but had core count advantage especially for the price).
Now, hopefully AMD can build on that and can leverage 7nm. I expect that Zen 2 and Navi will do quite well for them, especially with OEMs (who in turn I hope make some better products using AMD's stuff). I think we need more than just competent from AMD though. But I also think they can deliver on that. And hey, if you've got the money and use case for this, great. But I'm going to be critical of AMD similarly to Nvidia when I feel less than impressed with their stuff (especially at the elevated prices).