And if you compare the card + adaptive sync, AMD comes out cheaper every time.

I disagree. While it may be true that a card plus the GPU will come out in favor of AMD 100/100 times, that's only for the first purchase. In Nvidia's case, you're buying a monitor, which you only need to buy one time (I suppose three if you're a true PCMR vet) but even then, monitors last for a decade or longer. If you're the type of person to buy top-end cards, how many are you going to buy during your monitor's lifetime? 3? 5? 10?

Think of it like this:

GTX 1080 = $400

Some Gsync monitor = Oh, say, $350.

Vega card: $550

Some Freesync monitor: Oh, say, $200.

If you buy in the short term, the costs are roughly equal, albeit Nvidia's card has slightly better performance. However, extrapolate to three sales (Assuming you play to buy three monitors and three cards over, say, six years) and the costs are still equal. Past that, however, and suddenly you're saving $150 per generation by buying the cheaper graphics card, which coincidentally has better performance.

I actually have threee freesync monitors. I also have a GTX 1080, but I used to have an R9 390x. Were I to go back in time, I'd probably go the Gsync path for the sake of long term viability. It sucks their monitors cost a lot more than ones with freesync, but if you do the math for the long term, and not the short-term, it pays off much better to shop Nvidia.

....Plus, in my experience, Nvidia's drivers are much better than AMD's. I remember constantly fucking around with my 390x, reinstalling things over and over, etc. Nvidia is two clicks and done.

Still, I have my freesync monitors. Given some major advances by AMD, when I go to upgrade from my GTX 1080 in, say, 2-4 years, I might switch back. We'll see.