Personally I think it's not very meaningful to compare different architectures with various parameters because it can be difficult to know how these parameters work across the architectures. The only real objective parameters are probably power consumption and maybe chip area (which may have cost implications, but again not necessarily directly proportional).
Also, different architectures have different requirements. For example, extra computation power, if not bringing more performance, seems to be wasteful. However, they might not be wasteful when running a different workload. Different workload has different requirements and can be bottlenecked by different paramters.
To use an extreme example, if you only benchmark non-RT games, a GPU with dedicated RT hardwares will look "wasteful" because they perform relatively worse (i.e. they require more transistors to perform at the same level). Another example is extra VRAM, which does not improve performance at all if a game does not use that much, but you'll still want some because future games might.
Extra computation power, AI units, and extra bandwidth, all could be useful in a different workload and current workloads might not show the benefits. Poeple used to think the tensor cores are uesless in games but now DLSS and FSR4 proved otherwise. All engineering is a balancing act.
