Single Status Update
I think at this point I'm going to skip Turing/Navi. I'm looking for a credible 4K card in the $400-500 range, and for whatever reason I'm holding out hope that the Volta **70 card will be able to hold its own at 4K high/60 on most titles.
I'm skipping Turing / Navi too.
I'm wanting at least 4K 60 fps (minimum, not just 0.1% lows or averages, even in the thickest / most complex battles / scenarios) at MAX settings (not just high, and including ray tracing, etc, times multiple displays if possible) in the then-latest most-demanding AAA titles released AFTER my next GPU goes on sale, in about the $200-300 range. So, I'd be looking at like x60 to x70 class if they brought prices back to sane levels - x60 $200, x70 $330, x80 $500.
(Better yet, like GTX 200 refresh launch prices in mid 2009: GTX 275 = $249, GTX 285 = $369. There was also a $499 dual-GPU GTX 295. There was also a big price cut by Nvidia - the GTX 280 had launched late 2008 for $649.)
Also I don't think I want to upgrade until the then-available lowest-end new cards are faster than the fastest card (including workstation / datacenter / enterprise multi-GPU configurations) from my current desktop video card's generation. I remember seeing shrink-wrapped EVGA GeForce 8400 GS cards on the shelf at my nearby Fry's during the mining craze in mid 2017 or so...
Yes, I prefer massive performance bumps when I upgrade.
My current cards (GTX 1060 3GB in desktop, GTX 970M 6GB in laptop) are good enough for my current 1080p 60 medium / high gaming in somewhat older titles, but I can't push them too hard.
For example, in GTA V with the settings in the spoiler, my GTX 1060 3GB gets about 0.3 fps at the beginning of the in-game benchmark! (If it doesn't crash, that is. My 4790K's HD 4600 gets about 1.8 fps, and laptop's GTX 970M 6GB gets about 6 fps. It's severely VRAM constrained with those settings.)