I don't see that much of anything has changed in the AMD v Nvidia experience.
Amd makes good hardware that is competitively priced against Nvidia, but it always seems to fall short on driver support.
For me, it comes down to what monitor you want to use. If you have, are plan to use a high refresh rate G-Sync monitor then the answer is pretty obvious. Same holds if you plan to play games that actually use ray tracing.
If neither of the above apply, the you can likely save a little bit going the AMD route.
My son and I had this debate a few days ago as he's doing a new build in Jan (awaiting parts like everyone...) and he asked me the same question. He settled on a new ASUS LC 6800XT because he is currently running Dell 60Hz monitors and has no immediate plans to upgrade. Given that - the AMD 6800XT is actually a bit of overkill, but who doesn't like more power?
For ED either one should work fine. First determine your use case and potential upgrade path. If VR, or high refresh G-Sync aren't needed and you don't anticipate playing ray tracing heavy games, AMD is fine, and you may not even need the most expensive model.
1440p ultrawide pushes a lot of pixels, so in your case, more is better. But if the monitor isn't G-Sync compatible then AMD high end is worth consideration.
Once graphics cards actually become available, I'm pretty settled on going with the Alienware 38" G-Sync Ultimate monitor and hopefully with an Nvidia 3080Ti as that will probably be well matched to the demands of the monitor.
If your 1440p is only running @60Hz it won't be as demanding. Some also only 2560X1440 as opposed to 3840X1600 on the Alienware. More pixels times higher refresh will require more video card power. 1440p Ultrawide is a bit too vague to make a specific recommendation on your particular needs.
HTH
