LOL. Nice fantasy land you live in buddy. Facts are they miscalculated the need/want/penetration of RTX features, especially at such a high cost and performance "premium".
They probably put these "features" in the first place because they couldn't increase performance enough, so they essentially put psyx 2.0 in there.
You can look at my posting history, I'm not exactly a
huge Nvidia fan. However, the only reason people hate the 20 series is because of pricing. If the 2080ti was released @ $700 - it would've been received extremely well. It was released at $500 more, though. Nvidia have decided to let price/perf stagnate and increased prices across the board. I assume they expected people to actually pay more in order to participate in beta testing for DLSS and RTX. Given Nvidia's margins, I believe they could have crushed AMD. AMD's cards have been extremely complex (HBM/HBM2 , interposer etc.) large and inefficient compared to Nvidia's.
The FuryX was just competitive with the
stock 980 ti (recall that AIBs has 20%-25% better cards), and it needed a complex architecture with an interposer and HBM. The FuryX was still less efficient than the 980 ti. Thanks to HBM, it also only had 4 GB of memory.
Vega 64 (a 486mm^2 card with HBM2) is barely competitive with a
stock 1080 (a 314mm^2 card with GDDR5x) while, again, being less efficient, costing a lot more and having exotic memory and using an interposer. It was also released
more than a year later. Vega also has a few features that were supposed to work but never panned out. the smaller 1080 ti was way faster.
The Radeon 7, a 7nm 330mm^2 with 16GB HBM2, is just competitive with the stock 1080ti (471mm^2 14nm). It's also, again, less efficient by a wide margin. It was released almost two years after the 1080ti. The 2080's perf/watt is 37% better than the Radeon 7, according to TPU.
For the last four years, AMD's "high-end" designs have been barely competitive with Nvidia, and essentially never really out-performed them while always being more expensive to build, having very expensive memory, and consistently having worse perf/watt than Nvidia's card at the same price point.
AMD have also been unable to release a top to bottom architecture in years. We're still seeing the third
Polaris re-release for the "low end"/midrange. Nvidia have released a top to bottom Maxwell series, Pascal series and are close to releasing their "low end"/midrange Turing cards.
I'm planning on replacing my aging system with an all AMD system later this year (assuming Navi is not a turd), but IMO the graphics landscape hasn't been
extremely competitive in the last few years. AMD have managed to right the ship in the CPU side (also thanks to Intel's 14nm and 10nm troubles), let's hope they manage to right the GPU ship.