That's fair to ask - but if I could sell today and get nearly $400 and then in a five weeks there is such a bountiful crop of AMD Navi cards that I lose ~$200 on resale then that seems like lost money to me. Like deciding when to sell a stock...
And I've got a years use out of this thing, so I could look it at is as ~no cost per month of usage (sell now) or ~$20 per month (sell post launch) OR just pass it down to my son like I intended to and like you just get years of functional use out of it.
If used GPU prices hadn't been so crazy last year I probably would have tried to find a Vega 56 or something to nurse myself into RDNA2. I was so close to buying a Fury Nano on eBay for ~$105 shipped - I am kind of annoyed I didn't because of how niche that card was (I put in an offer for $100 and he countered at $105 and I let it expire)
Maybe if you consider GPUs an investment? I usually end up giving them away. I routinely rebuild PCs and give them to family, friends, and those less fortunate (not necessarily in that order). To me it's a sunk cost. A part of my hobby.
I must say there is so many misinformation, no one can even speculate on memory bandwith to start from it
like 16GB can only be 256/512bit or HBM2
and 12GB is 384bit
if its just 256bit i can`t see being any if at all faster then 3070
What's funny is that the bus size can actually be any size. Most people don't realize this, but yes, it's possible to have 16gb of GDDR6 and a 352 or 384 bit bus. There are a number of ways to do this (though to be fair they aren't used as far as I'm aware). I'll leave it to your imagination to figure this out.
Found this on Reddit. 20% IPC gains incoming?
https://adwaitjog.github.io/docs/pdf/sharedl1-pact20.pdf
Abstract:
It is my understanding that the actual "IPC" (in quotes because can one really use the term 'IPC'?) of the architecture, including everything (rendering, shaders, etc.) is closer to 7%. We will see, however. My information is based mostly on console related stuff. I've seen numerous rumors and leaks that indicate that PC RDNA2 parts are at least somewhat different from console parts, but I'm not sure those changes will help "IPC". AMD is going to reach performance by scaling CU count upwards. An "IPC" increase isn't needed. It's just icing on the cake. Coincidentally, a 50% perf/watt increase would allow them to have a 72CU part run at the same TDP and same clocks as the RX 5700 XT. Food for thought. Assuming that they are able to scale up performance with CU count, well...
I know some people here may not understand the concept of AMD delivering solid execution, but they've been literally "executing" Intel. Anyone that claims they can't do the same thing to NVIDIA should stop posting here and short AMD stock.
EDIT: As an addendum to why "IPC" isn't really valid for GPUs, the "TFLOPs" measurement is the closest you'd get to IPC, which as you can see is wildly abused (NVIDIA claims double FP32 TFLOPs with the 3080 over the 2080ti, yet as we've witnessed, it performs 20-30% faster). Once you start factoring in geometry, textures, clocks, shaders, etc. all bets are off.
EDIT 2: As an example of why IPC can't really be measured. Vega64 has 12.66 TFLOPs of compute power, or nearly 30% more than the RX 5700 XT. However, you'll note that the RX 5700 XT beats the Vega 64 soundly in gaming. No, AMD isn't making up the TFLOPs number. Vega has really strong compute performance, but not so great gaming performance.