cryoburner
Judicious
While I agree that the "ultra-high end" is probably not that meaningful of a market for them and the vast majority of those shopping for a graphics card, I wouldn't really say that the current Radeon lineup is as competitive as their Ryzen lineup has been.Dollar for dollar they already are . The "ultra-high end" is such a small market, that AMD (at this point) doesn't really care, and correctly see it as a pointless pissing contest. An RX 5700XT pushes about as many pixels as an RTX 2070 Super - both firmly in the "high-end" GPU category. Cards above that price bracket have an absolutely minuscule market-share that isn't economic and thus not worth pursuing outside of bragging rights on review websites like this one.
With Ryzen, AMD has been offering significantly more cores for the money, while still maintaining competitive per-core performance, and Intel has only started catching up on mainstream core counts recently. And Ryzen does offer ultra-high end options, while still being really competitive at the lower end. Ryzen is also currently more energy efficient, includes better stock coolers, and newer features like PCIe 4.0. AMD has been putting on an all-out assault on Intel's processor lineup the last few years, after being well behind for quite some time.
In the graphics card space, many of the Radeon cards could be considered reasonable options, but for the most part, their current lineup has not been offering much more for the money than Nvidia, and in some cases less. Their energy efficiency and heat output are a lot more competitive now due to them being on a superior process node for the time being, but they are still not quite matching Nvidia on that metric despite that process advantage. And feature-wise, AMD is arguably still playing catch-up, particularly with raytracing, however underutilized it might be at the moment, but also with things like their hardware video encoder. Nvidia's current cards do pretty much everything AMD's do, and a little more. AMD does tend to offer slightly better performance for the money in most current games with their 5600 and 5700-series cards, but the feature tradeoffs prevent that from being a clear win. Had they launched the cards at those prices alongside Nvidia's initial 16 and 20-series lineup, they would have been highly competitive, but with all of them coming the better part of a year later, Nvidia was able to counter each of these cards before they even launched.
And for the 5500XT, AMD may have improved efficiency over the RX 480 and 580, but otherwise they are offering a very similar level of performance as they were offering at a comparable price point a few years prior, and no tangible benefits over similarly priced cards from the competition. I suspect a lot of this has been down to limited 7nm production, as they likely make significantly more money per wafer on Ryzen processors than on Radeon graphics cards, so they don't want to push them any more than they have to, especially at those lower price points. As such, we get performance that is merely on par with the competition. It would be nice if they really pushed performance and features at every price point with their next cards, though Nvidia tends to be more responsive than Intel at reacting to competition on a timely basis, so it might be more difficult for AMD to offer something notably better than them for the money.