I'd like to make a comparison to AMD's Zen side, if you will, because it appears that AMD bit off more than it can chew for RDNA3.
If you recall, Zen 2 brought modest IPC gains over Zen 1, and if I'm not mistaken, the original goal was to just port the Zen 1 core but implement chiplets, which is a big task in and of itself. Just being able to bring forward some of the design changes from Zen 3 to Zen 2 was a positive surprise, but it was never the original game plan.
Meanwhile, you have RDNA 3 here, which essentially is trying to do what Zen 2 did but also shove all of Zen 3's core changes into the same iteration. It would be too much at once, but I suspect that AMD got ahead of themselves and saw a once in a lifetime opportunity to offer some serious perf/$ gains. If they were able to hit 3 GHz out of the box, they'd be able to compete with Nvidia's best in raster with 200mm2 less silicon.
It truly is a shame AMD couldn't accomplish what they set out to do. You know, it's easy for us to sit in these forums and just bemoan when Nvidia extend their lead, but the fact of the matter that silicon design is awfully difficult has always remained true. These things take years to design and validate, and there's a lot of emotional investment involved, so I'm sure our disappointment pales in comparison to that of the internal engineers at AMD.
At least we have an inkling of an idea of what RDNA 4 should be: less aggressive on the architecture, and focus on the silicon design. Work out the kinks and leverage chiplets harder. Continue to polish up the drivers and get feature parity with Nvidia on FSR.