Now you're kinda starting to sound like me.
When you look at it as needing a 4070 to play a game at decent settings, that indeed does suck. When you realize a 2080 Ti really isn't THAT far off a 4070 (~10-15%, maybe ~20% on the outside absolute performance depending upon where the bottleneck is, and it can be 2x perf a stock 6600xt when overclocked), it's not so bad. I do agree that it's important to look at *some* nuance in settings, as we're kinda spoiled by the fact W1zard cranks everything up in reviews and 2080ti is turning into a <1440p/60fps gpu in some scenarios. I agree 1440p60 will probably be doable with a little finessing that won't impact IQ that much (if you're running a fairly decent CPU). We shall see, but make no mistake that reasonable settings (say 1440p60 or 4k DLSS balanced) are left off for a reason...They likely make too much sense on a cheaper product to sell newer more-expensive gpus (which is the point of a game like this).
I really, honestly, do not blame the games advancing in required spec. I blame nVIDIA's pricing racket and performance segmentation. AD104 is handicapped, AD103 is expensive. It would be great if AMD would catch up in RT, but I'll take the cheaper prices in the mean time.
At some point people will realize the next step up from that level of perf is not RT, but 16GB of VRAM (hence the 1080p60 med RT for the 4070/ti; 1440p is conspicuously missing bc it too probably won't run performant-enough on AD104). It will be interesting to watch 4070ti age versus 7800xt. I imagine 7800xt aging even better vs 4070ti than 2080 ti versus 4070, and in the end the achievable playable performance will be similar (if 7800xt not better when 12GB becomes a limiting factor at ~1440p regardless of RT). I think there's also a dang good chance the same will be true with AMD/Intel's next GPUs and 4080 wrt longevity. 4080 will likely always be a very slightly better GPU, and that's by (probably anticipated) design, but (hopefully) there will reach a point where people realize it's just not worth the premium unless you're absolutely enraptured by nVIDIA's paid-for tailored features in a handful of games specifically there to up-sell you to a needlessly expensive GPU that still can't run at a decent resolution/fr with those features turned on. JMO.
As a 'what will x get me' sorta guy, I really only see two GPUs currently: 2080ti, which is old but a bangin' value, and (6800xt)/7800xt, which is if you're buying new. There needs to be a GPU that is ~30% faster but also ~30% more money; a slightly cheaper 7900xt if you will. The only way anything changes in the current landscape is if 4080 gets a ton cheaper, and I just can't see them going below the price of a 7900xtx bc greed. 7900xt might get cheaper though.
I can also imagine 7800xt becoming cheaper, and navi4x/BM being greater than proportionaly better perf/$ than 4070ti/4070 ti super, or whatever they call a further cut AD103, let-alone 4080. TBD value prop with 4070 (just like) tea tea, as I think 4070ti/4080 are going to lose a metric ton of value fairly quickly and it's unknown how nVIDIA will attempt to slot that into the equation. If it's under $700 and can compete with 7900xt/n4x/BM in value I will be pleasantly surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.
With that being the case, I just don't see how anyone can make an argument for nVIDIA's current GPUs unless you are that person for which money is no object; the next evolution of an Apple fanboy complete with paying the tax for a bespoke feature. I can appreciate RT as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the value until the next generation (at the very least). Until that point, I just don't see why someone would buy something more expensive than a 7900xt, and preferably that performance would be (and soon likely will be) even less expensive.
