So far, the Adrenalin driver for my RX 6900 XT has been pretty good, was even good during the time I was using the RX 6800 from later part of November to the whole of December before I upped the card to the RX 6900 XT on 2nd January. Only issue I'd seen then was Metro Exodus CTD with RT enabled. A newer driver release resolved that issue. Right now, as a user of an RX 6000 series card, I can say the driver and Adrenalin features have been pretty good (I sometimes wonder if all the AMD driver naysayers were just parroting what they had heard or read in the various forums/discussions).
In fact, I've been an ATi/AMD card user since the good ole 9700 Pro days, and I've not experienced any issue that would make me regret getting their cards. I also ran nVidia cards since my first nVidia card (GF2 MX400 IIRC) and have run both CF and SLi configs (last CF rig was a pair of VEGA64's, last nVidia was a pair of GTX Titan's). I've not had any major driver issues with either, so I don't understand the dissing of AMD drivers.
I chose the RX 6000 series card over nVidia for various reasons:
1. An RTX 3080 costs as much as an RX 6900 XT in some instances,
2. Availability, couldn't find an RX 6800 XT, the RX 6900 XT (like the RTX 3090) seems to be more easily available ('easily' being relative of course)
3. I think RT still needs much better hardware to run well at native res, without the need for DLSS, so I'm not a fan of RT as it stands now,
4. More VRAM is more 'future proof', yes, I hate to bandy that term, but AMD has always been more generous with VRAM than nVidia (which would later release more VRAM version of the cards). I like the thought that when more VRAM is needed, my card has the necessary VRAM. Just look at the RTX 3060 Ti (8GB) vs RTX 3060 (12GB), doesn't make sense to me to have more VRAM on a weaker card. I guess that leaves room for nVidia to make an RTX 3060 Super with 12GB RAM (another cash cow).