Kudos to the guys at X-bit, a precise review as always.

I don't know if anyone has spotted the annoying fact that a 8800GTX (released Nov. 2006) is going to be just fine in most games.Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I saw is that the GTX is lagging by just a tiny bit behind the G92 cards in most games, and there are a couple of them in which it actually performs faster. In Call of Juarez you've got the X2 at the front end, but I wouldn't call the FPS it delivers exactly comfortable.

So what is my point - I didn't see a game that was unplayable (or delivered uncomfortable FPS) on a GTX, and suddenly enjoyed a noticeable boost on a GTS 512/1024.

How the hell are nVidia (and its vendors) expecting to sell their products with a lineup like that... If I'm an enthusiast and I've got a GTX somewhere in 2006, I still wouldn't have an obvious reason to upgrade. Which is by no means a bad thing for the customer, but it's leading to a dead-end for the green boys if they don't come up with something really fast soon.

"outperforms the 9800GTX" ... i really doubt that. maybe the author meant 8800gtx? because no benchmarks of the 9800gtx are on the market yet, it is not good journalism to compare with that. i would really correct the first paragraph, people start reading this test with high interest, then it turns out that there is no proof about that statement. even all benchmarks are only made with a 8800gtx and none with a 9800gtx. not acceptable. first time xbitlabs really disappoints me

how about two of these bad boys vs the gx2.
i already own an factory OC of the gts and considering buying another to sli. i would like crysis game tested in directX 9 too please.
i am not sure why xbitlabs consistently test this game in vista cause of the horrid frame rate.