Why? Every time I see arguments along these lines I question whether the people making it actually understand that these cards are designed with their power target in mind. It's not a flaw in the design or the process, it's what AMD (in this case) specified for the card. As has been proven time and again if you really want lower power use then you can dial back clocks and voltages slightly for some huge power savings. The question is what percentage of potential users would be willing to take a 5-10% hit on performance for notably lower power usage. AMD reasoned that a more favorable positioning vs. the competition with regards to performance was more important than absolute power usage and I tend to agree with that. For the sake of the argument, say AMD released the 5700/5700 XT at 120/150W rather than 180/225W and at just 10% lower performance. Now the 5700 compares less favorably to the 2060(s), similarly with the 5700XT and the 2070(s). Reviews would note the low power consumption but they'd focus far more on the performance deficit compared to the competition. Forum warriors would complain about the lacking performance rather than the power usage and as forum warrior arguments go that's actually a more reasonable one. A not insignificant number of people complaining about high power usage would, instead of praising the now low power usage, complain about low performance. It's not a situation that would benefit either AMD or the vast majority of users. TL;DR: The power usage of the Radeon 5700 series is neither a design flaw or a problem with the 7nm node. It's an active choice AMD made to hit the performance targets of the cards. You may disagree that choice, in which case you should think long and hard about what you really prioritize in a graphics card.