I've become more and more convinced that considerations like yours, which I do not understand since I don't rely on GPUs professionally, have been the main driver of Nvidia's market share. It makes sense.

The online gamer talk is that people just buy Nvidia for no good reason, it's just internet guys refusing to do any real research because they only want a reason to stroke their own egos. This gamer-based GPU market is a loud minority whose video games don't seem to rely too heavily on any card features for decent performance, or especially compatibility, with what they're doing. Thus, the constant idea that people "buy Nvidia for no good reason except marketing".

But if AMD cards can't really handle things like machine learning, then obviously that is a HUGE deficiency. The public probably isn't certain of its needs when it spends $400 on a graphics card, it just notices that serious users choose Nvidia for some reason. The public buys Nvidia, just in case. Maybe they want to do something they haven't thought of yet. I guess they're right. The card also plays games pretty well, if that's all they ever do.

If you KNOW for certain that you just want to play games, then yeah, the AMD card offers a lot of bang for your buck. People aren't that certain when they assemble a system, though, or when they buy a pre-built. I would venture that the average shopper at least entertains the idea that they might do some light video editing, the use case feels inevitable for the modern PC owner. So already they're worrying about maybe some sort of compatibility issue with software they haven't bought, yet. I've heard a lot of stories like yours, and so have they. I've never heard the reverse. I've never heard somebody say they'd like to try Nvidia but they need AMD. Never. So everyone tends to buy Nvidia.

The people dropping the ball are the reviewers, who should be putting a LOT more emphasis on use cases like yours. People are putting a lot of money into labs for exhaustive testing of cooling fans for fuck’s sake, but just running the same old gaming benchmarks like that's the only thing anyone will ever do with the most expensive component in the modern PC.

I've also heard of some software that just does not work without CUDA. Those differences between cards should be tested and the results made public. The hardware journalism scene needs to stop focusing so hard on damned video games and start focusing on all the software where Nvidia vs AMD really does make a difference, maybe it would force AMD to step up its game. At the very least, the gamebros would stop acting like people buy Nvidia cards for no reason except some sort of weird flex.

No, dummy, AMD can't run a lot of important shit that you don't care about. There's more to this than the FPS count on Shadow of the Tomb Raider.

It's a shame there's not really an equivalent comparison to the CUDA cores on AMD cards, being able to offload rendering to the GPU and getting instant feedback is so important when sculpting (without having to fall back to using eevee)