Hunter2020, are you even capable of making the effort to read what other people write?

Blender, all 3D render engines(Vray RT, Redshift etc), several video applications all benefit from Nvidia. Even some simulation applications. Not from Radeon.

AMD Radeon is cheaper than Nvidia, that's it. RDNA2 may be quite competitive for rasterization workloads (it was the choice for consoles for a reason), but is far inferior in key features such as ML support (Tensor cores), AMD's answer to DLSS is far inferior, and so are the RT capabilities of Radeon GPUs.

The past is in the past, today's products need to stand on their own against the battery of benchmarks and real world users. If you really want to talk about the past, AMD GPUs were sh*t not that long ago -- CGN overstayed its welcome and Vega was a complete flop. Today things are different with RDNA, but they are still far from being superior. Nvidia dominates the market while still charging substantially more than AMD for a reason.

ATI made graphics cards that were superior to NVdia.  Maybe not the fastest, but my games were clearly looking much better when I swapped out my NVdia for ATI many years ago.

Huawei is the King of digital photography.  They wouldn't use Radeons exclusively in their AMD-only laptops if Huawei deemed them inferior to NVidia in terms of visual quality.

Huawei is the king of snobs. They snubbed 16:10 in favor of 3:2.  They are clearly snubbing NVidia as well in favor of Radeon.

Hunter2020 other people like me do not want Radeons.

There is no CUDA in it so many creative applications are inferior with AMD graphic cards. From Blender to Unreal, to DaVinci Resolve etc.

The reason why I will never buy a Lenovo 16 incher is becoz Huawei 16 inch laptop does things better:

1. Radeon GPU is superior to NVidia GPU.  (Years ago I switched from NVidia to ATI graphics card and my games looked much prettier).  Why Lenovo goes AMD CPU but sticks to NVidia GPU?!?!

2. 3:2 is superior to 16:10 becoz 3:2 offers more vertical screen space.