Your metrics and weights are far inferior to what an actual
"gamer" is looking for.
Most PC gamers don't do so in a vacuum. They have friends... they are not people perusing the internet and click on an add and install a "game". Most PC gamers are Platform gamers. Only since Steam, which capitalized on young kids, who were out of the home, has PC "gamer" become more casual and at ease. In which, anything is a form of entertainment.
There is a big difference between a PC gamer and even a Mobil (laptop) gamer (massive difference). The broad strokes in which you are trying to paint Your picture, of a typical PC builder is laughable. Arnold Swartz commercials for his Mobile Strike on are TV all the time & those are the dumb, proto-typical being you are trying to bring to life in your argument, as a gamer?
Enthusiasts today, who are building rigs today... are not looking to stifle their experience, they are looking out towards the future, & what will enhance their abilities for future engines, etc. Not hard to understand, how & what a human needs/thinks about. They are looking for efficiency of values (things important to the want/need). I can could persuade you (as a 37 year PC gamer), that Ryzen is the easy choice for a base platform, for any build you wish to endeavour. The case is simple: AM4
Gamers look at the whole SYSTEM when building. AMD is providing more legroom with their platform. Now, and looking forward, to me AMD's platform has what the People need & want. As a consumer, it is plain and simple. Intel is not even in the picture because it's platform, isn't in the picture.
The 7700 would be a stop gap, or wasted choice in just a few years. Because the 7700 today's price/value, doesn't exceed Ryzen's future value... at any tier.
I run three rigs, one is always top percentile (ie: 1080ti incoming), and the other two rigs just get trickle downs. As a gamer, One does not even need a benchmark to see Zen's value. I have three i7 (3770k, 4770k & 4790k) that need upgrading. I am patient, the two builds I am doing, are over the next 2-4 months. I agree that AMD's birthing pains could've been better, but I am sure in 2 months time when Vega drops, full AMD will be the gamer's choice..!
I am looking to go mATX on AM4. Why not..?
What does this have to do with anything I said?
AMD has freesync 2, at some point I expect normal TVs will use the technology.
Besides if Vega is only 10% slower out of the box yet consumes less power and is 25% cheaper? Why would you think Vega is a bad deal?
Considering it has a more advanced uarch and will almost certainly get faster over time, I think Vega will be an awesome gpu, only way I see a failure is if is 20-25% slower than 1080ti, for its rumoured die size that wouldn't be good, even taking in account it future proof uarch.
Conjecture...
What if Vega is 10% faster, 5% cheaper, is it a bad deal?
Obviously you can just make up some numbers that make it a good deal.
It's whether it actually happens....
Also, none of you ever factory in time. There is a value of time. Nvidia offers superior value in the TIME you can user a high end card for because they release months before AMD. AMD has a lot of factors working against them when it comes to the high end, and that's before you even factor in the fact that if the GPU somehow is also a great GPU miner, the card prices will sky rocket making it AGAIN a poor value.
I'd say the price point is nothing new except this time they have no competition that we can see and Nvidia are about as greedy as it's possible to be.
They price their cards to be as much as they can possibly get away with and based on how much more Titan XP cost vs Maxwell if they had no serious competition
I'm pretty sure 1080ti would have come in much nearer $1000 than $699. I just sold my two Titan XPs and will replace with single 1080ti and see what Vega brings.
What do you mean "This time they have no competition?"
Last time they had none either.
Lets back up here for a second. The Ti card is a CUTDOWN Titan card.
So the Titan XP/1080Ti is equivalent to the Fury X/Fury. The Fury would be the cut down Fury X.
Once the Fury X releases/290x releases, we know AMD also has stock of the 290/Fury. Those would be chips that couldn't make Fury X /290x standards, etc.
So once the Titan card releases, Nvidia has NO COMPETITION. Because they can also release the TI card anytime they want after that card. It's an EASIER card to produce.
So there is NOTHING new this time. It's just Nvidia pricing the same performance level at two different price points to capture more revenue. This is similar to what a movie theater does by charging senior rates, adult rates, and kids rates. So they can charge every person just as much money as they would want to pay to maximize the money they can get from them.
Titan is for early adopters.
Ti is for the "value" guys, that Nvidia can drop this card just before AMD and capture the spotlight, get a whole new amount of people that wouldn't pay $1000+ but would pay less, and make even more money.
It's just smart business, and Nvidia DESERVES the money because they are releasing their high end GPU FIRST MONTHS before AMD does. When AMD can release a high end GPU within a couple weeks of the Titan card, we'll be having competition again. Until then, the high end is Nvidia to do whatever they want with.