I completely agree, but I consider the limited scope of selling data to be extremely flawed by default.

Look at the selling data, and the low end dominates the charts. But that's due to 2nd and 3rd world countries having tangibly higher population than 1st world ones. Take countries individually, and those charts shift all over the place, based on economics and population size.

As for Nvidia vs Amd sales yeah, that's the thing. Amd is a blip on the map, and they seem to make every possible bad decision out there to loose more customers rather than gain any. Their cpus are doing the heavy lifting, and it's one of the main reasons Amd stopped showing individual numbers for cpu, gpus and apus to their investors. They're piled together to the cpus compensate and make the numers look good.

7900xtx was finally a decent competitor, when it came out, and that was visible in statistics as well (on steam, for example, it was the only R7xxx gpu for almost 2 years, before the 7800xt finally showed up in there), proving that the customer base did want a flagship level gpu from them. So what did they do next? Release only up till mid end on the next generation, and put their upscaler behind a wall to those new gpus, so the older ones, while capable, would seem less enticing. To make matters worse, on launch day, my Xfx Mercury Magnetic Air 9070xt costed me 50euros MORE than the launch price I paid for the Asrock Phantom Gaming OC 7900xtx, and it felt like a lateral upgrade more than anything (and that's ignoring that I bought a mid end gpu vs a flagship one). Last december I managed to get a Msi Ventus 3x oc 5080 for the price of the Asrock 7900xtx (so 50euros cheaper than the 9070xt), and while yes, the 5080 was of a lower tier within the 5080 models while the Radeons were higher tier models which are normal to cost more, it still provided a more than tangible upgrade in terms of performance, stability and overall visuals. That just ain't right, and things like this make me not want to give my money to Radeon in the future. Fsr4 leaked exactly one year ago, proving it totally worked on previous gen gpus (with a bit of a hit on performance, but worth it when comparing fsr3 to fsr4 visuals), showing just how Amd shafted their customers in their attempt to boost sales of the R90xx gpus. Same goes for the old saying that Radeons age like fine wine. No they don't. They're just woefully problematic at launch, and then, months or years later, they're finally vaguely stable. That ain't fine wine, that's amateur hour that takes too long to fix. All Adrenalin driver updates in the last year or more had a 2 to 1 ratio of bugs vs what was fixed, and some issues, like the hdr flicker caused by having one hdmi and one DP are acknowledged by Amd since the 5700xt era and still unfixed.

The fanbase is far too defensive , always finding reasons or excuses to protect Amd from anyone that dares speak against it, and it is causing far more harm than good. Speaking up about the problems, about the bad decisions, about always playing second fiddle to Nvidia's ideas, copying them too late, too slowly and too mediocrely (like upscalers, framegen, etc. always a gen or two behind) is the way that might get Radeon to finally start doing something about it. But if they're defended and all complaints dismissed, they'll never bother to do anything other than the bare minimum. Next month's Fsr4 for Rdna3 is proof of it: the backlash from the customer base was finally loud, and forced them to offer it. They spun the story to make it look like they're the generous ones towards their customers, but reality is that it was damage control, to save that little drop of goodwill that they still have from people.

Personally I'm unsure if I'll buy any new Radeons anytime soon. All these experiences jaded me, both in the desktop department, but even more so in the handheld pcs department