When I read that first sentence, I already knew the whole wall of text was going to include a bunch of BS. But let's humor you...
I guess I can answer some of your pressing questions then since you're asking so politely...
REALLY? What do you define value as? Because if we define value as price/performance ratio, AMD is practically almost always ahead. But let me guess. The definition of value changes depending on the advantage that nVidia has at that moment, right?
AMD's recent GPUs have all been very late responses to what Nvidia has long had on the market, and only then they come out with a marginally better value product, if the only thing you really care about is performance/$ in mainstream benchmarked games. Try a little something outside mainstream like OpenGL emulation on CEMU, and performance was atrocious until finally we're getting Vulkan options, which we can't really thank AMD for. And let's not go into AMD's old DX9/DX11 CPU overhead issue that they never fixed. These sort of issues prop up left and right once you go out of the comfort zone that is the mainstream benchmark games, and even those have some doozies that AMD often fails to address. I don't want it to be like that, but that's just reality.
Inferior feature set? Ah yes. Ray tracing. The feature available in a handful of games that in practice is pretty much useless. Where's nVidia's equivalent of Radeon Chill and Radeon Boost? And remember concurrent Async Compute? Did you argue that nVidia had an inferior feature set back then? Yeah, you didn't, didn't you?
There's far more to Nvidia's feature support than just Ray-tracing. They've pushed most of the real improvements in the industry, beginning with things like G-Sync. AMD has merely followed suit. Things like Chill, Boost, Async compute, what do these really offer me when AMD GPUs are louder, slower and demand more power regardless? FreeSync was useful response to proprietary G-Sync, but it would not exist without it either, and most often the implementations were sub-par.
Then there's the software feature set. AMD has a new pretty GUI, and half the shit in it doesn't work on their newest GPUs as per Gamers Nexus. Nvidia's control panel is old, but at least it works. Then there's features like Ansel and now adding Reshade filter support on top of what they already. Where's AMD's equivalent OSD features? They took forever even with Relive or whatever they call the equivalent of Shadowplay is these days. Even if AMD manages to bring some marginally useful software feature that Nvidia doesn't have, image sharpening for example, it's usually replicated in no time, whereas the opposite takes forever or never happens at all. That's the reality of the differences between AMD and Nvidia when it comes to software support and resources they can dedicate.
And why are you acting like the 5700XT is bad? The 5700 series cards are the best value for money for EVERYTHING above $300. And anyone that buys something else either has money to waste and doesn't care about value, or is simply ignorant, or is an nVidia fanboy.
I'm not acting like it's bad in itself. Not sure how you got that idea. I got a 2070S for ~100€ more compared to what I could've gotten a 5700XT for a few reasons. I play games like BOTW on CEMU, and modded Skyrim LE. Performance with these games on Radeon is atrociously bad, due to their ignored optimizations for things like OpenGL and CPU overhead issues like I already mentioned. I play on a 4K panel, and even 2070S isn't fast enough for it, and going 5700XT would not help there and beyond there's no choice at all. AMD cards also like to suck a bunch of idle power for no reason on multi-monitor setups. I could go on endlessly about all these sort of little issues that AMD never gets around to addressing, which ultimately makes it more reasonable to pick an Nvidia card. It's so much more than just the perf/$ in currently benchmarked titles, and that's where Radeon starts to stumble.
And that is exactly what is going to happen. You can start looking at the specs of the XSX.
Why would I need to look at the rumored specs, that I obviously have already looked at to make that statement in the first place?
Clock for clock, the performance of RDNA 1.0 is pretty much the same compared to Turing. People are somehow forgetting how small the 5700XT chip really is.
AMD dragging on is your opinion based on the perspective of seeing nVidia flooding the market with a bunch of useless cards as default.
You seem to forget AMD has a node advantage, one that'll be erased this year. Clock to clock is a useless metric in real world products. I'm not saying AMD is dragging because Nvidia has a lot of cards on the market. I'm saying they're dragging because they don't have competitive products out on the market in several segments. Any fool can see that. They had essentially 5700XT and non-XT last year, everything else was either old or effectively useless in terms of moving the market. This year they'll have Navi 20. That's probably it. Nvidia in turn will likely refresh their whole stack or close to it.
'Merely' force nVidia to actually compete? Why merely though? Isn't that what we want? I wouldn't want AMD to completely dominate the GPU market either. Not in the long term anyway. Look at AMD's CES presentation. They already started with deceitful marketing slides on the CPU side, simply because they are ahead. The ultimate goal is balance, and well, at this point things are as disproportionate as it can be, and ultimately, we suffer for it. And yes, it's our own fault for buying into nonsense, the latest example being ray tracing, which was obviously used to jack up prices way beyond what is necessary.
If AMD is just competitive, people still go for Nvidia, right? It's not the job of consumers to help failing companies. It's their job to sell the product, and in AMD's case that's going to require a product faster and more efficient than Nvidia. There's absolutely no worry right now that AMD is going to deliver a product that will dominate Nvidia in the GPU market. They could have a dominating product for half a decade and they still wouldn't be where Nvidia is right now in terms of market leadership. If AMD can push some next gen console RT/Navi advantage in the PC market, great for them, but we've all heard these stories before. They amounted to less than nothing this gen.
I would like nothing more than AMD to actually offer better products. As it stands, we're a long way off from that. I don't bemoan people who get themselves an AMD GPU, there's plenty of use cases where they offer plenty of value and sufficient support, aka the mainstream volume segment I talked about. I bemoan people who think there's no reason to pick Nvidia other than overpaying for more performance or blind brand worship. Or people that claim AMD is on par with their feature set outside "that useless ray-tracing feature". That's crassly oversimplifying things. On paper Radeon is always better perf/$. Once you start playing with them (year or two later) and shit don't work right (you don't play that mainstream benchmark), it might not feel that way anymore.