My point is that today, in August of 2016, a GTX 970 or 980 can not be considered "enthusiast cards" as they have been replaced. Also, the 970 was not an enthusiast card when it was released due to its position within the product stack, having both the 980 and the 980 Ti above it.
That's true, but the whole point was that it was claimed that the 480 was only "2014 high end performance", when it actually more on par with enthusiast class cards from that time period.
This is all because atomBomb made a joking post suggesting that the 480 shouldn't be classed in the current high end performance class. Which, I think is wrong anyway (at least based on the terminology AMD is using). Hardcore PC gamers have gotten it into their heads that spending $400-$600 on a graphics card is normal, but that's out of touch with the vast majority of buyers. I think the $200+ range still rightly counts as high end. With enthusiast starting at $300+.
I remember when the Geforce2 Ultra came out at like $400 and hardly anyone even considered buying it. Back when I paid close to $300 for my Radeon 9700, I certainly considered it high end. So, I think that things have changed, and it's true that more enthusiast class cards are now selling, but that doesn't mean they're now only "high end" by the terminology AMD is using.
(On a side note, I wonder if this has changed due to us gamers being older now and having more money? I know back when I was in my late teens/early 20s, a $600 graphics card would not even be remotely within my budget, but now it no longer seems so unreasonable. Granted there has also been some inflation since then, but not
that much.)
In normal discussion, I can see how one would say the 480 is only a midrange card, because hardly any actual gamers use the term enthusiast class (which is market segment speak). We have low, mid and high, and by that token the 480 is mid. But this is all just semantic nonsense, started by a joking post.
