Think about it this way.
Why is NVIDIA able to charge more for similarly spec'd cards? Would it have anything to do with delivering better performance perhaps?
This whole discussion was about ARCHITECTURES
, and you just proved that Kepler is superior.
The same thing happens to AMD on the CPU front, their 8 core CPU competes with Intel's quad core, and AMD is un-able to charge more than $200 for it. ( It's not for a lack of trying either, 8150 launched at $269, and was $199 within months )
AMD wanted their GPU flagship to be $550, again that didn't last long did it?
If the 7970 was superior, it wouldn't have needed price drops + games in order to compete after the 680 came out, especially since it had a bigger bus, more RAM, and more shaders. No wonder NVIDIA said the following:
Now that GK110 is out in the market, it's clear GK104 is NVIDIA's mid-range GPU, yet it competes with the best AMD has to offer, again, because Kepler is superior to GCN for gaming. Otherwise GK104 would've powered the 660 like in the previous gen and sold for $299 max.
As it stands the 780 is 20% - 25% faster than 7970 GE and hence the $650 price tag.
Look at history:
GTX 280 launches for $650, within a week it gets forced down to $499
because of the 4870.
GTX 480 $499
GTX 580 $499
GTX 680 $499
GTX 780 $650 only this time there's NOTHING to force the 780 to be $499, I'll give you one guess as to why.
By all means compare cards in similar price brackets, just don't go on claiming that GCN > Kepler clock for clock WITHOUT making the proper comparisons, which was my point.
Let's go back to the similarly spec'ed cards comparisons
770 vs 7870 XT in Gaming Evolved titles ( check out 770 vs 7970 while you're at it )
I already pointed out that both camps do not have similarly spec'd cards at the same price points.
Thank you once again for proving my point though.
Just saw your post, glad that's settled and cleared up.