I think you may be under the spell of these things you are accusing everyone else of. You mention several monumentally detrimental events or characteristics of AMD cards that I've never heard people use as a factor for their purchasing decisions:
- When the RX 480 had a (non-)issue with power consumption through the PCI-E slot, it was a huge deal that made the card so-called dangerous and unreliable.
- When the R9 Fury X with 4GB was a competitor to the 980 Ti with 6GB, Fury X has too little VRAM.
- When AMD had the best speed with the R9 290 release, their power consumption mattered.
- When AMD had driver faults, those were a deal breaker.
- When AMD brought FreeSync, they were just copying nVidia and having an inferior version of G-sync.
- When AMD brings out equivalently performing & priced cards (Radeon VII), they are overpriced because they failed to help lower nVidia prices.
When my acquaintances, friends, and I buy video cards it's typically based on what is the fastest card I can purchase with my specific budget TODAY. The problem for the last few years has been that AMD has been a little late to bring that performance to the game and we're supposed to be expected to wait a year or two for drivers to mature and future games to take advantage of AMD's work. By that point I'll probably just buy the newer, faster nVidia product if my performance isn't where I want it to be. I'm pretty sure everyone here wants there to be better competition between nVidia and AMD and a third serious player wouldn't hurt either, but when it comes to GPUs AMD has struggled to keep up and I believe this is why nVidia can beat us over the head with 2080Ti pricing. Everyone (except nVidia share holders) HATES the price of the 2080Ti and if AMD did bring something with equivalent performance for a reasonable price (I hate to say it but < $800 USD sounds reasonable these days) you can bet everyone would be all over that and nVidia would be forced to adjust. They just can't give me a 2080Ti performing card that can only perform that way in 20% of the games unless I'm willing to wait a year for drivers to mature enough to get that up to 50% of the games while forcing me to buy a bigger powersupply and better fans.
You know... I wrote a whole post tackling every single point to prove it... But, I really don't need to. I'm quite sure that I'm not the one under a spell. I will show you... I will tackle two of the most important points. The most important ones where you yourself, will be the protagonist in one of them. The other protagonist, is going to be Steve... Let's start with Steve...
When AMD had the best speed with the R9 290 release, their power consumption mattered.
Firstly, I meant the R9 290X, to avoid confusion. I will edit that. But going on-topic... You say that is never used as a purchasing decision... WOW. Ok... Even IF these are not used as direct reasons for purchase, they do contribute to the mind share of how nVidia is always superior, and THAT ultimately has brought us to the state of gaming where we are today, where nVidia can charge what they want. If people want AMD to compete, they need to start supporting AMD when AMD deserves it. Let me quote what our beloved Steve himself said regarding the R9 290X;
"Pros: Similar performance to the GTX Titan at nearly half the cost -- a gutsy play that should provoke a response from Nvidia.
Cons: It's hot enough to remind us of Fermi and it's still priced like a premium card compared to more mainstream Radeons."
https://www.techspot.com/review/727-radeon-r9-290x/page11.html
Although the following point is not directly power consumption related... Even at half the cost of the Titan while having similar performance, he is STILL complaining about the price. What is the reason that such a price is not justified if it has performance similar to Titan? Tell me. Give me one good reason. You think that is normal? The only reason I can think of, is that in his mind, Radeon MUST be cheaper than nVidia. Most likely because in his mind, they are inevitably worse than nVidia and must charge less. Even though it is already half the price for the same performance, that was still considered a con rather than a pro. Let THAT sink in. Take all the time you need, and then come back and tell me that I am the one under some sort of spell.
The R9 290X was equal to or faster than the Titan when it came out, at half the price and that remained that way for 10 months. How many people bought it? Why didn't so many people buy it? Ah but the power consumption... Yeah. Let's tackle that. Because like Steve himself said, it was hot enough to remind us of Fermi. But people still bought Fermi though. WHY??? The performance crown? Why does that work for Fermi and not for the R9 290X????? Did the Radeon competition outsell Fermi? So what is it? Performance crown, or power consumption? Yeah... Everyone that's honest knows the answer. It's whichever one nVidia is better at. That's why Fermi can sell and the R9 290X can't.
Now it's your turn on the stage...
When AMD had driver faults, those were a deal breaker.
Driver faults are never used as a purchasing decision? REALLY? Firstly, it's the standard response that you get, when you talk about the HD 4850/HD 4870 being superior. That is given as the reason that barely anyone bought it compared to Fermi.
Secondly... The driver argument is only viable if the card is slower at the time of release. In the majority of cases, it isn't. In the majority of cases, the cards are on equal footing, or slightly faster, and the gap only grows over time. And yet the same excuse is used... Even if the card is substantially cheaper...
Lastly... The ace in the hole. To quote your own posts, right here...
"The problem for the last few years has been that AMD has been a little late to bring that performance to the game and we're supposed to be expected to wait a year or two for drivers to mature and future games to take advantage of AMD's work. By that point I'll probably just buy the newer, faster nVidia product if my performance isn't where I want it to be."
And
"They just can't give me a 2080Ti performing card that can only perform that way in 20% of the games unless I'm willing to wait a year for drivers to mature enough to get that up to 50% of the games while forcing me to buy a bigger powersupply and better fans."
Remember that you just that "When AMD had driver faults, those were a deal breaker" is NEVER used as a factor for their purchasing decisions... Oh... You just used that as a reason yourself....
...
Oops.
...
But forget all this. I'm the fanboy. I'm the biased one. I'm the one under a spell.
Right now, it's all on power consumption. Don't forget power consumption. We will forget though, if AMD ever becomes more efficient, just like that neat little fact is still swept under the rug when it comes to Ryzen vs Intel CPUs. Because it's all about performance.... Preferably, single threaded performance....
Yes. People want good AMD cards so they can buy cheaper nVidia. And obviously that's not going to work to create more competition. The current mentality is biased towards nVidia and it is not going to change the gaming space for the better. It is only going to make it worse. Blaming AMD is easy. But maybe, just maybe, it's not only AMD that is to blame.