AMD are playing catch-up on several fronts in this space, most of all in RT-capability. Their upscaling tech has improved incredibly over the past few years, to the point where I'm having a hard time separating it from DLSS. However; when it all comes down to it, you can't get the sheer performance from the top AMD cards that you can from NVIDIA. It doesn't technically matter, as most gamers are lower-end or middle-ground type hardware, but appearances matter. AMD even verbally left the performance race sometime last generation, I think this hurt them a lot. The idea has already formed in the potential customer minds - NVIDIA means performance, while AMD is the poor player's choice. None of that is true, but markets behave like they do for a reason. Stories about awful drivers and other problems of the past for AMD even persist, likely due to a severe case of "justifi-isis" on the other side of things (the green side), or simply ignorance among consumers.

Look at mobile-phone manufacturers; how many newcomers have we had who punched into the market with much cheaper models that performed worse specs-wise, using this as a marketing ploy to disrupt existing products? A lot, that's how many (Huawei and OnePlus spring to mind, as well as NothingPhone). Eventually though, they adjust the prices upwards and start building flagship phones, even if they sell much less. Why? Appearances, pedigree, bragging rights, what have you, it's a whole thing in the tech industry overall. Heck; look at AMD themselves, they've adjusted their prices up a great deal, and now they're signaling that they're ready to take on NVIDIA again next generation, with its flagship GPU. 

NVIDIA's marketshare is a disaster for us consumers, it really only benefits them and their investors. But their rise to power is as much a failing on AMDs part as it is a measure of great work from NVIDIA, if not more so. AMD focused hard on CPUs for a long time now, gaining marketshare in the consumer space, and rising to dominate Intel in the commercial and industrial space. All that has come at the cost of the GPU market. Unlike NVIDIA, AMD have been fighting a two-front war - against both NVIDIA and Intel, and they simply prioritized one front over the other. I think AMD will gain a lot of traction in the coming years, with the proliferation of all-in-one or ARM type setups in laptops, and probably some consoles - this is an area where NVIDIA doesn't really have a leg to stand on (at least yet), as they seem intent on continuing the all-in on AI powering and features. 

Edit: For me, personally, I made the jump to 4K a couple of years back. There was simply nothing from AMD that came close to the RTX 4090 at the time, which is which is why I went team green. I also had the 980Ti for over seven years, it was an awesome card, but before that, all I ever had were AMD cards. AMD had NVIDIA beat on performance a couple of times - but they had issues (my 1950XTX and 5870HD were both crazy loud and ran really warm on load, the 1950XTX actually killed itself due to overheating).

All Nvidia here. Went from 4070 to 4090, just got my daughter a 5070ti. I don't see what AMD offers over Nvidia, I just don't.

Currently? Not much really. As I said, they haven't manage to keep the prices at bay. Something like 9070XT, that's within 5% of 5070Ti performance wise, would be a steal for original MSRP of $599. But you can't really find it under $699, so why bother when you can have 5070Ti for $50 more (as shitty as nVidia's drivers were with RTX 50 series).

RX 90 is great architecture, but still lagging behind nVidia RTX 50 in RT - that is, in RT that's in current games. If I understood correctly, AMD's approach to RT is more suited for chaotic complex geometry than nVidia's, which is more efficient in structured, man-made architecture. Not that nVidia will be siting and doing nothing, but I think AMD has some leverage to push with developers certain things, given that they're providing hardware for next gen that will be very RT heavy. That and those rumours about UDNA are really promising.

I think RX 10(X?) vs RTX 60 will be very, very interesting, with AMD trying to even go for the throne, which didn't happen in quite a while.

Yeah, that is where I netted out.  For $50 I got better RT and upscaling.  So I spent the extra $50.  I gave AMD a strong look, but just wanting for AMD to take the next leap, which I think they will.  

Unfortunate, however like some others, I've only used Nvidia.
My gpu history is:
GT540m -> GTX980ti -> RTX3070 -> RTX5080

One of the reasons I think (or at least personal for me) is the naming scheme. I had AMD GPU last in 2011, when I purchased the Radeon HD 6870. I was very happy from it, and I was gaming till 2015 on it, with everything maxed out, on 1080p on most of the games. In that time period of around 10 years (2004 - 2014) the naming scheme was so simple. You always knew which card what class is and which is better than which one from the previous gen. Then after that they changed the naming scheme a few times, which I think led to customer's confusion and cost them market share in the long run. Opposite to this Nvidia sticked to one and the same naming scheme since 2009, and even before that, it wasn't confusing either.