@DAPUNISHER
I'm don't like to overly rely on Ferengi math either, as it lacks nuance.
The graphs actually already introduce nuance, like the distinction between inflation-compensated prices and non-compensated prices. The spoken text contains a lot more nuance still.
So I don't agree with your complaint. These kinds of comparisons actually provide a way to compare sentiments against fact, or simply give you a way to reflect on why you feel a certain way, even if those facts don't paint the full picture and can be interpreted differently.
They may desire features exclusive to the new generation, adding to the value of the product for them.
This only matters to the comparisons if the newer cards actually provide substantially better features than previous generations. Surely the people who answered the polls at HUB already factored in that they expect similar feature improvements as in the past. I'm not sure that this argument helps you much, because the VRAM increases have come more slowly, which is a common complaint. VRAM is obviously one of the main features that newer cards tend to improve upon. Stagnating VRAM would, all else being equal, make the newer cards worse upgrades than previous generations.
And one of the main touted features, RT, is considered to be a pretty mediocre feature by many & is something that is taking forever to trickly down the stack to more affordable price levels. This is something that Nvidia seems to strongly believe that we should be willing to pay a lot more for, but which actual buyers seem to not be so hot on, for the most part.
DLSS 2 is a majorly appreciated feature of the 20-series and up. On the other hand, in many cases it has helped older cards as well, extending their useful life, which makes newer cards less enticing. Even for the cards that don't support DLSS, you now have FSR 2.
I can't speak for others, but more me, raw horsepower + VRAM + strong drivers are way important than all the other features.
For example: The chart showing improvement over time between the GTX 1070 and 4060ti 16GB is an effort in futility. So many features have been added, the ram has doubled; Ferengi math can't calculate that.
But the 'Ferengi math' actually clearly shows one of the issues that people have with newer generations. The price increase of the 16 GB card over the 8 GB version means that you have to choose between a doubling of the performance in three generations for the same money, which people were used to, or actually getting a memory increase.
If you go back three generations from the 1070, you have the 670MX with 1.5 or 3 GB VRAM. So featurewise, someone who upgraded after three generations to the 1070 would get 2.5 to 5 times as much VRAM. If they then upgraded from the 1070 to the 4060 Ti, they would get 1-2 times as much VRAM, so less of an improvement in all cases. And if they upgraded to the 4070, they would get only 1.5 times as much VRAM. And of course, between the 670MX and 1070, other new features were introduced as well.
So I'm not seeing this amazing improvement in features that should cause us to want to upgrade more readily than the price/performance improvement would entice us to.