AMD is quite competitive with Nvidia at the moment... the problem is that you can't buy any of their GPUs since they are being instantly bought up by cryptocurrency miners.
On a more serious note, Nvidia used its superior marketing to bind a substantial part of the professional segment to its hardware, since they were the only party to offer decent quality programming tools. Unfortunately, the Khronos group failed at the practical aspect of their job regarding OpenCL, which is partly the reason why we have the proprietary mess we have today. CUDA is inherently very dangerous, since using it means voluntarily creating a monopolist who is in total control of your business — and a single mistake from Nvidia would mean a disaster for the CUDA users. And recent PR debacles show that Nvidia is getting too cocky with their status.
As far as hardware goes, current AMD's offerings are technologically a superior product. They offer more flexible setups, proper task scheduling in hardware, adaptive execution etc (and your an see that in complex workflows such as raytracing, where Vega outperforms everything else). Nvidia's GPUs are simpler, which is probably also the reason why they are more energy efficient and ultimately perform so well in embarrassingly parallel tasks. Of course, technological superiority does not necessarily translate to a better product — Nvidia's success is in part good marketing and in part smart decisions as to which tradeoffs to make.
I think my point is that your premise might be wrong: while you are correct that Nvidia has much higher market share and visibility in pro market, its not really the case that AMD's GPUs are inferior. AMD is in an awkward position right now, so much is sure, and it will be difficult for them to bounce back — especially since a lot of damage has been done already by users who helped create the monopolist.
