And the idiotic comparison between SGPU and SLI/CF continues although people should know better that the perceived performance of AFR is less. Thus the whole performance/$ comparison is [false] in the first place. And if you count games where AFR doesn't work correctly at <=50%, it looks even worse...
You seem to not understand this simple concept:
1) When SLI/CF doesn't work, if there is a $500 GPU with 87-90% of the performance of a $1000 Titan X, that's HALF the price for 10-13% less performance.
2) When SLI/CF does work, that's 50-70% more performance for a similar price.
In other words, that's a win-win situation because 10-13% less performance will not make Titan X more playable in games, while having a 2nd GPU when CF/SLI works provides a huge improvement in performance.
No one advocates buying dual GPUs with similar performance to a single-chip flagship if the prices are similar. In other words, no one would advise someone to buy GTX760 SLI over 780Ti/R9 290X or GTX970 SLI over a $700 GM200 6GB / R9 390X (assuming it has 90% of the performance of the Titan X). However, it should be obvious that there are clear situations where dual videocard setups are hands down better than a single GPU option. 2 primary examples are $660 GTX970 SLI vs. $550-600 980 OR R9 295X2 $650 vs. $550-600 980 for 4K gaming. Your desire to always ignore multi-GPU setups as irrelevant dismisses specific cases where dual-GPU setups are simply the better option.
The minute there is a card with 87-90% of the performance of a Titan X for $500-550, the Titan X is
history/irrelevant. You don't have to agree but many will. As 3DVagabond mentioned, the Titan X at $1K is grossly overpriced. It's way out of line based on the price/technology curve and it's obvious to anyone who follows the GPU industry. Even though there is a small group of enthusiasts who always buy the best, it doesn't change the facts that a cheaper priced GM200 6GB is inevitable, as well as a way superior price/performance AMD R9 390 option.
The people who buy Titans, in any iteration, don't care about any of that. Where are the people who justified the price of Titan by it's DP performance now complaining about the Titan-X because it doesn't have it?
Ya, I get that. There are going to be people buying 3-4 Titan Xs. However, in 3-6 months from now, there will be cards with similar performance for $600-700. If someone is in no rush (i.e., has a backlog of games), is still waiting for FreeSync vs. GSync monitor debate to settle down, and could care less about bragging rights, the Titan X is an easy skip. Again, many called that the original Titan a huge rip-off and a card that was launched at the wrong time for gaming; and that turned out to be 100% true. The Titan X's performance increase over the 980 is less than the original Titan's was over the 680 but the price is the same. That makes the Titan X's relative performance standing even worse, especially so since the rumoured specs for an R9 390X are simply beastly.
Don't forget that some gamers buy 2 GPUs when they upgrade. If for example I can get 87-90% of the performance of Titan X SLI in R9 390 nonX CF/GM200 6GB SLI for 40-50% less, it's worth waiting for 3-6 months. Some people disagree, but for me it's also the principle - I won't support $999 single GPU prices even though I can afford it because I think sending a signal to NV that these prices are OK does more damage to the GPU industry then it helps.