Depends how you define segment.
By the dominant use scenario. I don't have a better way.
Price-wise, it's very close, even if it draws more power. There's no denying Nvidia's efficiency and perf/W lead, but perf/$ is just as important.
Cards like RX560 and GTX1050 are chosen not because of how much performance they provide, but how much performance they provide
with external limitations: case size, power supply, cooling etc.
This also means the price for these is rather high if you look at the whole lineup (RX560 vs RX570, GTX1050 vs GTX1050Ti). That's simply because for a big part of target consumers these cards have no competition from the higher models. Hence, they're willing to pay a premium as if GTX1050 was the top performer (just like you would pay a premium for 1080Ti).
Even if you accept a larger form factor, moving from GTX1050 to GTX1050Ti could mean you have to replace the case, the PSU or improve airflow. It all costs.
RX570 pulls 190W under heavy load and over 170W in gaming. Even if you make a small one, it may not fit in a power budget that many SSF systems provide (~200-300W).
I was asking if examples of low power GPU applications that need improved performance. So regardless how "improved" this new card will be, just there is no market requesting it.
Why not? Why wouldn't low-power PCs evolve like everything else?
With your logic, SFF would still perform as they did in the 90s.
