People are forgetting that the the RTX cards utilise Ray Reconstruction and ReSTIR GI. These not only improve performance but also the visuals. None of the other vendor cards can do this so this is likely why only RTX is listed here in this context.
Barely any games use these tech, yet - especially second one (CP2077 and... any other actually?). RR is in its core just a simple AI algo, which will be duplicated by competition - there's nothing really special or secret about it, even though results are much better than standard denoising algos. NVIDIA had a good idea but just like FG, it won't stay NVIDIA exclusive for much longer. Lumen doesn't use ReSTIR GI, they have their own solution. Both of these have limitations though. Checking various UE forums where game devs talk to NVIDIA and UE devs, I found that Lumen is more noisy in reflections but produces accurate ones and they're improving it with much better denoising (similar to RR) already. In newest builds of UE5 it's already very apparent how much reflections improved comparing to older UE5 versions. NVIDIA's tech speeds up PT rendering but produces inaccurate reflections, missing light diffusion and few other bits, as it's limited to just 1 bounce with reflections. Reality of products is never as good as advertised, after all.
I'll leave here one of the NVIDIA employee's quote from their forums, as a response to dev trying to make it work in UE, where Lumen was generating proper results and Restir GI was generating huge issues with camera movement, bad reflections etc:
"So basically, low res Restir GI + RT AO is the current solution, enlarge RTAO radius may help. As I mentioned in readme doc, Restir GI is much harder for artist to tweak properly compared to Lumen, so I still put HW Lumen as primary GI solution."
That said, both companies are constantly improving their respective technologies of course, but devs of both also admit neither will ever be as accurate as true Path Tracing (which, in itself, is also a simplification of reality, with loads of shortcuts in it already) - it's physically impossible, as current hardware is way too slow to accurately calculate all light in live scenes (as in, in games). Which is what I said earlier as well.
In the end, what we see today in games is not true PT - number of light rays calculated is miniscule, heavy denoising, details missing, loads of inaccuracies. All the crutch tech is not much different from what GPU rasterization was comparing to CPU calculating whole scene back in the days, with loads of simplifications accelerated by hardware and building on top of it (introduction of pixel and vertex shaders etc.). It still allowed very fancy graphics in games and yes, it will be phased out by new simplified methods based on RT/PT - yet still not really being true PT. It's an evolution, not revolution, I dare to say. And it will take a long time to actually replace rasterization in games and become mainstream - as even with all the crutches and shortcuts it's still not fast enough for cheap GPUs and raster still has its place.
Some games had drops to 30s FPS now and then, but (as said earlier) I got used to this. Then going back to 120+ (usually 167 as that's my monitor's limit with in-driver v-sync enforced) was quite a bit of a soap-opera shock, as mentioned. 
