Thanks for at least trying to engage with at least some of my reasoning. I don't mean to be rude but I think one or two people here have totally missed my point.
If I'm using Windows (as opposed to Linux), I'm sacrificing things like customisation, open-source code, security, privacy, stability etc. I'm doing that because Windows might be compatible with the software I like to use, its user friendliness, and out-of-the-box hardware support. I don't want to have to think too much about it, the thing just does what I need it to do. That doesn't mean I'm stupid, I just don't want to spend time tinkering and troubleshooting things as that isn't a profitable use of my time.
If I have an AMD card on Windows, it's an uphill battle getting it to run things like local LLM's which more and more people are doing now and have become easier to operate thanks to software like LM studio. Whereas Linux plays much nicer with AMD cards.
On Windows, I install my Nvidia card, the drivers/app, and I'm good to go. I've got the convenience of Windows, and can use all of the bells and whistles on my Nvidia card. The AMD card on Windows is going to be a gaming focused card for most people. If they want the extra utility and software perks they will unfortunately have to pony up for the green card. And they do. So AMD must (at least for now) be cheap enough to account for that (generally speaking) it is a single-purpose product as opposed to the multi-purpose Nvidia card.
The people that have misunderstood my argument are just proving my point by saying things like the above "when I game, I want raw raster with high IQ, high fps, and stability"...
Anyway. That's enough energy spent on that. Hopefully AMD give us a good price now and make things interesting for gamers this gen.