It seems patently obvious to me that if AMD could have created a profitable product competitive with the 4090, it would have done so. There's clearly a market for such products (Nvidia is selling a bunch of 4090s). Why would AMD not sell to the ultra high-end if AMD could compete there? It makes no sense. None of us should assume that AMD's executives and managers, who have proven very competent over the past several years, are incompetent. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, we must assume that AMD assessed their technology and the relevant metrics - costs, power consumption, performance, features, market size and share, etc. - and concluded they could not make a profitable product in the 4090's product segment.
It is a disservice to AMD's engineers and business people to accuse the company of "not trying" and it is nonsensical to argue that AMD arbitrarily decided "it wasn't worth the hassle" to compete in the ultra high-end. Indeed, if AMD was "not trying" or did not make an educated decision to stay out of the ultra high-end, then its executives are negligent. But, I have a higher opinion of AMD than to conclude the company capriciously abandoned the ultra-high end. Rather, AMD is competing where it reasonably believes it can compete, and it is not competing where it reasonably believes it cannot compete, like in the market serviced by the 4090.
It is a disservice to AMD's engineers and business people to accuse the company of "not trying" and it is nonsensical to argue that AMD arbitrarily decided "it wasn't worth the hassle" to compete in the ultra high-end. Indeed, if AMD was "not trying" or did not make an educated decision to stay out of the ultra high-end, then its executives are negligent. But, I have a higher opinion of AMD than to conclude the company capriciously abandoned the ultra-high end. Rather, AMD is competing where it reasonably believes it can compete, and it is not competing where it reasonably believes it cannot compete, like in the market serviced by the 4090.