GTX 970 was much, much closer to the flagship - the GTX 980 Ti, back in its day..
GTX 970 100%
GTX 980 114%
GTX 980 Ti 131%
NVIDIA GM204, 1178 MHz, 1664 Cores, 104 TMUs, 56 ROPs, 4096 MB GDDR5, 1753 MHz, 256 bit
www.techpowerup.com
Radeon RX 6600 XT 100%
Radeon RX 6650 XT 102%
Radeon RX 6700 XT 114%
Radeon RX 6750 XT 123%
Radeon RX 6800 145%
Radeon RX 6800 XT 166%
Radeon RX 6900 XT 180%
Radeon RX 6950 XT 191%
AMD Navi 23, 2589 MHz, 2048 Cores, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 8192 MB GDDR6, 2000 MHz, 128 bit
www.techpowerup.com
The 6600 XT is so slow, it's crazy. Never going to buy it..
Nobody's asking you to. But the bar for a flagship has been raised significantly. As has the amount of money they cost and power they pull. Not to mention the sheer number of products in the stack. The fact that Veyrons and Zondas exist doesn't make a Corvette or Z car slow.
GTX 970 - 148W/$330
GTX 980 ti - 250W/$650
6600 XT - 160W/$380*
6950 XT - 335W/$1100**
If you constrain for power, the 980 ti's equivalent in that list is the RX 6800, which is 250W and currently $600 (the XT can be had for about the same money, somehow). The 6600 XT admittedly doesn't look as good from that perspective. The 6700 XT fits in better if one looks at percentile gaps, though now you're looking at 230W.
And perspective's what it's all bout, innit? I tend to ask, what gets me an acceptable level of performance for the least amount of cash? You appear to give more weight to where a card sits in the product stack than I. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's something I don't personally understand.
I was about to leave it there, but find myself stuck on this question: If the 6600 XT manages better average framerates in tested games than the 970 did when it was new, why is the 6600 XT slow, but the GTX 970 not?
* Launch price; current street price starts at $330
** Launch price; current street price starts at $850