This breaks the HN guideline against calling names in arguments. Please don't do that.
I skim-read for comments regarding the R9 Fury X vs. 980 Ti and in particular comments about >1080p and had to go through seven benchmarks before arriving at an admittedly mixed ray of sunshine for AMD. Quotes from the article:
> (Battlefield 4) The R9 Fury X does not take the lead at any resolution, and in fact this is one of the worse games for the card. At 4K AMD trails by 8-10%, and at 1440p that’s 16%
> (Crysis 3) Once again the card trails the GTX 980 Ti, but not by quite as much as we saw in Battlefield 4. In this case the gap is 6-7% at 4K, and 12% at 1440p
> (Shadow of Mordor) These framerates aren’t bad – the R9 Fury X is always over 30fps – but even accounting for the higher variability of minimum framerates, they’re trailing the GTX 980 Ti by 13-15% with Ultra quality settings
> (Civilization: Beyond Earth) ...can’t keep this advantage at 1440p, where they go back to trailing the GTX 980 Ti in minimum framerates by 7%.
> (Dragon Age: Inquisition) The card trails the GTX 980 Ti at all times, by anywhere between 13% and 18%. At this point AMD is straddling the line between the GTX 980 and GTX 980 Ti, and at 1440p they fall closer to the GTX 980.
> (The Talos Principle) ...AMD’s performance once again regresses at 1440p. It’s enough to retain the lead, if just barely, and tie the GTX Titan X
> (Far Cry 4) Overall what we find is that the R9 Fury X has a 9% lead at 4K Ultra, and a 4% lead at 1440p Ultra, making this one of the only games where AMD takes the lead at 1440p. However something interesting happens if we run at 4K with lower quality settings, and that lead evaporates very quickly, shifting to an NVIDIA lead by roughly the same amount.
The article concludes:
> At 2560x1440 the card loses its status as a viable alternative. AMD’s performance deficit is over 10% at this point...
I didn't look up whether those games use Gameworks or not but if six-point-five out of seven games play better on NVIDIA than AMD well ... who is going to look at AMD cards for gaming?
Regardless, the more interesting card price/performance wise was the Fury without the X (with the current prices that is debatable). To answer your question: AMD is seen as having the potential to beat Nvidia cards later on, with driver improvements and DirectX 12. Also, there is something to be said to favoring the smaller player in the market. Especially now, with the prices being adjusted to the performance difference.
It is not like choosing the slower card will lead to games being unplayable – never on normal resolutions, with reduced settings otherwise.
There are plenty of benchmarks to support my claim, no need to resort to name calling, just show evidence that you are right. You'll see that the majority of objective evidence disagrees with you.
Who's the fanboy then?
AMD has Nvidia beat at one point: the R390 beats the GTX970, on Windows. Luckily for AMD (and hence for us, yay competition) it's a reasonably popular point.