AMD is a long way behind in performance per Watt and performance per mm2 die area. Saying that the vega 64 keeps up with a 1080 is pointless when the power consumption and die area is closer to the 1080TI.
Don't start with the "but the die is the huge so we have to compare it to the Ti" argument again dude because it's bullcrap, or do you have a lot of people around you saying "yes D.P. size DOES matter".
True, it does illustrate where AMD are deficient because it took a big die and lots of power to get there (although it actually shouldn't have if they were more discerning with their dies, as the undervolting results show), but AMD
still got there. And they can only improve upon it.
Random comparison: the USSR were seen as a legitimate threat to the US during the Cold War because their technology could more or less compete. It didn't matter that the Russians competed through sheer brute force and massive, clunky machines verses the comparatively slick and sophisticated US tech, what mattered was the Russians could still do it and were not dismissed because of it. So yeah, Nvidia may have the slick, power-efficient US tech and AMD may have the beastly, brutish and brash Russian vibe, but AMD are still there (more or less). Doesn't matter how they do it, they do it.
Do a 7nm refresh of Vega, be more discerning with the dies and yields, set power requirements accordingly and you'd see a Vega that's much more refined. And, again, let's see what Navi can do; here's hoping it catches Nvidia napping and forces them to release the killer tech they've clearly been sitting on for these 2 years as Maxwell Reprise stagnates everything around it.