Hardware Discussions

[GX-WarSpite]

Pick your poison!

[Geise]

Whichever is cheaper

[lordvader]

So this is what happens when you put two fanboys in a room together?

FWIW, I think they're both great cards. Right now, it seems that the X800 is best, but being so full of features, I reckon the 6800 will start to shine in the near future (and of course by then, I still won't be able to afford either)

[smull]

I agree, they are both very competitive cards, unlike the previous generation where the R300 ruled the market. But i will probably end up buying a 6800GT since it has all the high-end features of the Ultra but it's much cheaper. I bought a TI4200 2 years ago and STILL use it today, playing every game at least on medium details at 1024x768 with great results. I'm currenlty going through Painkiller with it and i can't believe how well it performs. If a 6800GT can provide me with such a life-span i will be happy.

[LORD ORION]

How come nobody mentions temporal anti-aliasing? This works wonders on LCD monitors that won't flicker like a CRT.

For me, it's hard to make a final decision since all the bench marks are run on super fast systems.

How about some benches that are run on average systems. Do the ATI cards still do well with FSAA and AF on if they are run on, say a AthlonXP 2400 with 512MBs? Can the 6800s still flex their non FSAA and AF muscles if they are running on an AthlonXP 2000?

More benches, more benches, more benches!

[Goofus Maximus]

I kind of don't care about the high-end cards; I just want to see the prices plummet on the current cards out there! I'll be all over a 9800 XT, when the price hits $140 (U.S.)

[immudium]

That was a fun discussion to read.

As far as what's important to me:

1. Heat and power requirements - I like to build SFF PCs as portable LAN machines and I can use ATI's higher end video cards in them easier than I can NVidia hardware.

2. Driver functionality - I still like NVidia's drivers better from a purely user interface standpoint. It's easier to find and change driver settings. ATI's user interface is a big messy pile of monkey poo and a pain in the ass to navigate. Also I detest the fact that both hand optimize popular games. I don't care if it "looks" the same or not, leave the damn game developers' code alone and focus your efforts are your own stupid code.

3. Price - $300 is my own personal price point. If I'm patient and keep a sharp eye out, I can usually find either ATI's or NVidia's high end card for that price about half way between the time when they release it and when their next gen part comes out such as my current 9800XT. It sounds like ATI will reach that point sooner than NVidia.

So for me the advantage is to ATI, but I appreciate both Jakub's and Brandon's perspectives. Thanks for the article.

[belgradar]

i think i would go with nvidia a prefoer masterbating to better quality models.

[TimBobJimmyJack]

Belgrad, what the heck did you say?

[ripfire]

---

TimBobJimmyJack wrote:

Belgrad, what the heck did you say?

---

He said:

"i think i would go with nvidia a prefoer masterbating to better quality models. "

[Cheesedog_3:16]

I will likely end up with a Geforce 6800 GT card. The Geforce 4 ti cards have been doing well for a long time.

[danielf]

Very good face-off.
I´ll just wait for the 200 buck cards once they start coming out. 400 or 500 bucks is simply insane.
I´m thinking of getting an ATI board, not because I get 110 frames instead of 105 from Nvidia (i really can´t see past say maybe 60 fps, im sure the human limit is even smaller), but simply because my last 2 video boards were Nvidias and I feel like changing.

[Anticipat3]

This is just sad. All Jakob can spout is rhetoric.

Guess what? The ATI cards are faster where it counts, and cheaper, and you can buy one TODAY, AND you won't have to deal with buggy drivers while they shake down new stuff. ATI played their hand right when they decided to make a muscle card -- who's looking BEYOND doom 3 and hl2? Nobody.

Either way, this is a total waste of an article -- post the numbers, post the pricetags, and leave the rhetoric elsewhere.

[SpacedOutDragon]

Here's the trick: the X800 PRO doesn't outperform the 6800 GT, especially if you leave the AA and AF OFF. Jakub brings up a very good point - the drivers for the 6000 series are still in diapers. The benchmarks in the 6800 GT article were on beta drivers. Once we get some improved drivers, I'm expecting some defeat of the crushing type for the X800 PRO. Jakub reiterated what I realized once I read the 6800 GT article - the GT is the card that will dominate the coming market.

Especially since it can be overclocked to Ultra levels on stock cooling. It's the card I'm getting once I put together the cashage.

[ripfire]

Much like most of the guys around here, I'll be waiting for those $200 options.

edit: BTW, didn't we do a poll already about how much are the people willing to spend on their next video card upgrade?

Message Edited by ripfire on 05-07-2004 01:14 PM

[sk8wnec]

I think the ATI lost

[Geise]

Let's remember that just because one card may be marginally faster, that doesn't mean the other one is weak. They are both extremely powerful. I doubt anyone who owns either of those cards will be dissatisfied.

[Millerboy]

---

immudium wrote:
1. Heat and power requirements - I like to build SFF PCs as portable LAN machines and I can use ATI's higher end video cards in them easier than I can NVidia hardware.

---

NEW!!! - The Hornet Pro is the only SFF system that can run the NVidia 6800 Ultra card... AND still has 2 free PCI slots!

http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=M&Category_Code=Hornet

Message Edited by Millerboy on 05-07-2004 04:23 PM

[Flaming]

That looks bigger than some other SFF option by quite a bit.

[Millerboy]

It's actually quite small: WxHxL 11" x 9" (9.5" w/feet) x 13"

It's not smaller than Shuttle's SFF: WxHxL 12" x 7" x 8"

But most people won't notice the difference.

Message Edited by Millerboy on 05-07-2004 04:31 PM

[Natedog51]

---

geise wrote:

Let's remember that just because one card may be marginally faster, that doesn't mean the other one is weak. They are both extremely powerful. I doubt anyone who owns either of those cards will be dissatisfied.

---

Exactly, they both look very very good. Also, as I said in another thread, from the way it looks the 6800GT will be the new Ti4200, and the drivers can only get better for both cards. Also, when they overclocked both Nvidia and ATI the Nvidia seemed to respond better and produced huge results compared to the stock settings, where as the ATI cards did do as well in that aspect. Just a thought to someone who likes to OC or is looking to do so.

Later

Nate

[ripfire]

---

Millerboy wrote:

It's actually quite small: WxHxL 11" x 9" (9.5" w/feet) x 13"

It's not smaller than Shuttle's SFF: WxHxL 12" x 7" x 8"

---

No MB, you got the dimensions for the Shuttle all wrong.

It's LxHxW: 12"x8"x7"

It's actually narrower than that PC you described (just look at the extra plastic at the sides from the CD drive).

The Shuttle's SFF is half the volume of the one you mentioned.

[Trogdor]

/Tangent! Back to the head-to-head EIC matchup....

For being the games reviewer as opposed to the hardware man (and a Canadian no less!), I have to say that I give the nod to Jakub in this article. Maybe it's just that I have a soft spot in my heart for Nvidia? Anyway, here are a few things that weren't clearly pointed out.

1) In the FS tests, the GF 6800 cards overclocked much better than the ATI models. Maybe Nvidia was just being a little too conservative, or maybe they're waiting for the official launch to spring the real clockspeeds on us? Or maybe you just had a hand-picked 6800 GT that might have been a 6800 Ultra with a modified BIOS? Anyway, it's going to be a major consideration for me on their cheaper models. With the overclocking and power question, no one mentioned this tidbit of information: sure, the 6800 chips have more transistors, so they should draw more power. However, graphics is an almost infinitely parallel computing task, so the extra transistors also add surface area and may just end up helping it transfer heat to the heatsink. There's no real reason to think that the added transistors couldn't be helpful in some ways. We don't know the number of stages in either GPU's pipeline either, which can affect a lot of things including realizable clock speed and efficiency. Just like in the CPU world. Still, 222 million transistors makes for a large die and at the very least has to increase the cost (and reduce the yield).

2) Going along with that first item, maybe the GT and perhaps even one more 6800 with 16 pipelines aren't even being released because of the threat from ATI? Maybe the real reason that the GT card exists is simply that there are GPUs coming off of the fab process that can only run at lower clock speeds? The only reason to actually disable those extra pipelines is if some of them are actually broken - at least, if you're the "underdog". The regular 6800 cards will supposedly have only 12 pipelines, like the X800 Pro. For either company, those cards might be defective pipelines that were disabled, or they might be turned off simply to decrease performance. I'm sure we'll find out more as time passes.

3) All of the "reviews" we're seeing are still on reference hardware with early drivers. Maybe ATI won't be able to improve as much as Nvidia, maybe they will. Nvidia certainly revamped the architecture of the NV3x a lot when moving to the NV4x, and it might actually be tuned to support 32-bit a lot better than the GFFX. Sure, it supports the half-precision modes, but does it really need them? I can't answer this right now, and no one that hasn't actually written custom code and tested it on the 6800 cards can give an answer. So the 6800 got beat in Far Cry? Well, I'm betting that it's still running the NV3x rendering optimizations that were likely built into the game. If the Far Cry code is modified with an NV4x execution path (SM3.0), we could suddenly see a major boost in both image quality and performance out of the 6800 cards. It's like optimizing code for P4 vs. Athlon execution - different cache sizes, latencies, pipeline structures, etc. means that "generic" code can often be half as fast or even slower than optimized code. Someone also whined about the optimizations that take place in games. When the GPU is the major bottleneck, why wouldn't you optimize? In an ideal world, it wouldn't be necessary, but last I checked, we don't live in anything close to an ideal world. (As a side note, anyone that cares about Tomb Raider: AoD performance is clinically insane. Crappy game, crappy code... how can we even trust performance results from developers that have such a lousy interface and game design!? This holds for 3DMark03 as well - it is not a real game, so results gathered from it may or may not reflect real game performance.)

Basically, anyone that goes out and buys either of these new high-end cards in the next two months is a friggin' retard. Pissing contests are stupid, unless you like looking at other guys' weiners. No game currently out has need of the performance of these models, and until games that actually do require this sort of performance are released, you would have to be an imbecile (or very rich) to go spending that much money on an uncertain future. Sit back, relax, take a deep breath, and wait for four or five months to see how things develop. There's a good chance ATI will still be in the performance lead, in which case, more power to them. There's also a good chance that Nvidia will improve performance, prices will drop, and games might actually take advantage of some SM3 features for improved image quality and performance.

Call me when Doom 3 and/or HL2 are released and maybe I'll consider upgrading. Right now, anything faster than a Radeon 9800 or GeForce FX 5700 Ultra is doing perfectly well.

Message Edited by Trogdor on 05-07-2004 08:50 PM

[FireSquadder]

In my opinion, the ATi Radeon X800 PRO and XT Platinum Edition is the cream of the crop and leaders of the pack in the gaming graphics card industry.  All their benchmarks in next-gen games like Far Cry and UT 2004 crush the benches of the GeForce 6800's.  ATi has been the king of the hill since their amazing Radeon 9700 PRO, and it continues the be the king the hill.  And plus, the GeForce 6800's require an adjacent PCI slot, a 480 watt power supply, and two ATX power cables.  Most PSUs only have three ATX cables, and two of them usually go to the two optical drives.  What this means is that if you have two optical drives, you'll need a PSU with four or more ATX cables.  If you don't want to find a PSU with that many power cables, the only choice you have is to use only one optical drive and use a SATA hard drive.  The X800 PRO, with it's low-k technology, can run well even on a Shuttle SFF case.  For those who don't know, low-k technology is ATi's special little technological tweak that allows the graphics card to run at high speeds with large memory bandwiths and still not need an auxillary power connection; just take a look at the Radeon 9600 XT, clocked at 500 MHz (526 MHz with OVERDRIVE enabled) and it still doesn't need an external power connector.  Anyways, I have a Shuttle SFF with a 220 watt PSU, and I'm sure the X800 PRO can run fine on it.  And one last comment: just because my PC is small, it doesn't mean it isn't a good one.  Packed with a Pentium 4 3.0 GHz CPU, 1 GB of Corsair XMS RAM, and a Radeon 9600 XT, my PC is pretty damn good.  And some of you may be laughing that I got a 9600 XT, but it's a damn nice card and I'm going to get a X800 PRO sometime this year. 

[ripfire]

---

Trogdor wrote:

1) In the FS tests, the GF 6800 cards overclocked much better than the ATI models. Maybe Nvidia was just being a little too conservative, or maybe they're waiting for the official launch to spring the real clockspeeds on us? Or maybe you just had a hand-picked 6800 GT that might have been a 6800 Ultra with a modified BIOS? Anyway, it's going to be a major consideration for me on their cheaper models. With the overclocking and power question, no one mentioned this tidbit of information: sure, the 6800 chips have more transistors, so they should draw more power. However, graphics is an almost infinitely parallel computing task, so the extra transistors also add surface area and may just end up helping it transfer heat to the heatsink. There's no real reason to think that the added transistors couldn't be helpful in some ways. We don't know the number of stages in either GPU's pipeline either, which can affect a lot of things including realizable clock speed and efficiency. Just like in the CPU world. Still, 222 million transistors makes for a large die and at the very least has to increase the cost (and reduce the yield).

---

I was actually thinking about that, but my idea was the opposite of yours. The more transistors there are on a relatively small die, the more it becomes sensitive it is to heat change as the clock frequency increase (increase in clock requires more power). You have to consider that heat dissapation ramp is exponentially proportional to the frequency and the number of transistors (think of it as the heat energy released from the transistors multiplies to each other at a single point rather than add up).  Also in this case, increased surface area is not as much of a factor than it is with density. The gate sizes just went down to .13 micron as it increased to 222 mil transistors. I would have to guess that the size of the die remained the same (or increased slightly) compared to previous generation chips.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that I think the NV40 would a lot more difficult to overclock than the R420.

However, I have high hopes for SM3.0 which includes programmable flow control. The thought of it might be able to reduce the duty cycle of the chip or increase performance.

[ProdigyXL]

If it comes down to an over clocking issue I'd take the Nvidia board over any of the ATi boards.  In damn near every review that has posted on the net in the last week, each has mentioned how they could really over the clock the ATi boards past their refrence design.  This make sense tho, ATi is using a suped up R3XX core in a sense, and just scaled everything up.  It doubled this, clocked that faster, more of something else; in that respect the core can't probably go that much further.  Nvidia has a new core thats probably got lots of head room to be made with newer drivers.  I'm building my super rig this month when the Ultra launches and I'll still be picking one up.  I play on lower resolutions like 1024X768 with max stuff so I'll still be plenty happy with my purchase.  Also since I only purchase cards every 2.5 years or so, this card will have the longer life span because of the 3.0 support and other featuers Nvidia has packed in there.

Either way you look at it tho, no matter what you purchase for yourself they are good cards.  I'm just sticking with Nvidia this round, I think they fixed their problems and are back on track.

[DraGoNsLaYeR]

Will ATI have a $200 card? I believe NVIDIA's is the 6800 non ultra non gt.

[Druga Runda]

R420 is a lot better!

I am actually suprised firstly at how much better it is, and secondly that many reviewers do not come to the same conclusion.

The reason being is

1. In the resolutions that matter X800XT beats NV40 big time, and that is with maximum IQ. In other words that means that 6xAA on X800XT is perfectly playable while more than 4xAA on NV40 is just poor.

The whole point is that both card can run 100 + FPS in most games in normal resolutions without AA AF and in those circumstances NV40 wins... or with older and open GL games like serious sam, or RCTW, Quake... the whole point is if you max out IQ R420 always wins... the only review which focused on that is Hexus...

and it is not like of you max out IQ that X800XT runs 30 FPS... it runs proper... unlike NV40 whose 8xAA is unusable.. I am suprised as I said already noone mentioned that... this is the main difference between the cards now.

IMHO who cares that RCTW runs 160 FPS on NV40 and 135 on X800 - for both it is perfectly playable...

add on top of that in the newer games R420 almost always wins and temporal AA modes that are god given for LCD's... that is a no brainer.

On the high end NV40 - good but not good enough.

That said, NV40GT could be a good bet against R420 if it's cheaper... but given the above it's a questionable purchase. As even three legged R420 is good enough to get better IQ than NV40 ultra with enough FPS in every single game at the moment. The only saving grace for Nvidia is Doom III in the future as expected.

Message Edited by Druga Runda on 05-08-2004 09:43 PM

[etealexfrenzy]

Has anyone visited the ATI site, good info on the new card.
I found this RADEON X800 XT 256MB DDR compared with NVIDIA’s eVGA FX5950 256MB DDR, as measured by Aquamark 3, Halo - Combat Evolved, Splinter Cell, Tomb Raider - Angel of Darkness, and Unreal Tournament 2004. Testing conducted April 22, 2004 on the following system: Pentium 4-3.2GHz CPU, 1GB PC3200 RAM, i875 chipset. 1600x1200 resolution 4XAA & 8XAF.

HALO with 1600x1200 and 4xaa 8xaf!!!! i didnt think this was possible.

www.ati.com (obviously)

[Millerboy]

hahaha, Nvidia is getting rocked at the Firingsquad polls. I can't help but laugh at Nvidia's imminent downfall. The NV40 is overpowered, two-slot huge, slower, more expensive, and louder than the ATI solution.
 
ATI and their R420 chips will come out on top.: 72%

No way, it'll be NVIDIA and NV40!: 28%

Total Votes: 630

Message Edited by MiLLeRBoY on 05-09-2004 02:25 AM

[tanclearas]

Druga Runda,

One of the most significant areas in which performance can improve with future drivers on the 6800's is with the higher image quality settings. I'm not sure how much more performance nVidia can get out of the 6800 without AA/AF settings, but I'm willing to bet it's not too much more. That's okay, because as you've noted, they already have comparable (and fantastic) performance with AA/AF disabled. Where they do have an opportunity to significantly improve performance in drivers is when the GPU is doing more work per pixel (ie: higher IQ settings). I'm not saying that this significant increase is a guarantee, but if I was a betting man, I'd bet nVidia will significantly improve performance for the higher image quality settings in a not-to-distant driver release.

With that said, if I had the money to spend on an X800XT PE, that would probably be the card I'd buy. It just seems to win out in terms of raw horsepower. The truth is, I've only ever personally known one person who ever bought the ridiculous high-end for video, and it's not me. The 6800GT looks sweet, but even that will carry a hefty price tag. Some people have compared it to the Ti4200, and in some senses it is (it's identical to the top dog, just lower clock speed and lower price). The big difference is, the Ti4200 was not $400; it was half that. Even the (crippled) 6800 (no letters) which will boast only 12 pipes is supposed to be $300!

Honestly, I don't really know what my next card will be. It may simply end up being a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm not sure that nVidia's or ATI's sub-$250 cards will be able to compete with the Radeon 9800, or even the 9700.

Tanclearas

[Millerboy]

Tanclearas, stop being brainwashed. Yes, Nvidia can improve their performance but if you look at the fps in Far Cry and other next-gen games, ATI beats them by over 15 fps. There's no way Nvidia can pull 15 frames out of their ass to beat ATI's card.

ATI is just faster than Nvidia. That's it, there's nothing to debate about.

[Trogdor]

MB, from start to finish during the life of the GeForce FX chips, Nvidia ended up with something close to a 50% performance increase.  Don't count them out yet.  (ATI pulled off a performance increase of maybe 25% over the life of the Radeon 97/98xx.)  Given that the 6800 architecture appears to be a pretty significant change while the X800 is really just the 9800 with more pipelines and normal map texture compression, I would expect Nvidia to again get more performance relative to ATI over the life of the next generation cards.  Does this mean I would buy the 6800 over the X800?  Not at all.  I'm not stupid enough to spend that much money on any graphics card!  I would wait for at least three to six months before I purchased the next gen cards from either company.

Anyway, for a guy that used to be ultra-pro-Nvidia and has now flip-flopped to being xt-pro-ATI, I wouldn't talk about brainwashing if I were you. 

[gregorov_14]

you know what's funny MillerBoy, you suggest ATi, but buy Nvidia.  seems kinda odd if you ask me.  anyway... i personally prefer Nvidia cards myself so i'm with the 6800 gt nvidia right now and 6800 ultra.  once they're actually released, i'll see the performance then and make my judgement, but right now it's with nvidia.  the way i break it down, ati wins in directx and nvidia wins in opengl, so it's more of a tie.  plus i like the nvidia card more because it has more features with it, but most of it is kinda useless until it gets used.

[voodooit]

I think Tanclearas makes a very good point about the 6800 GT. A lot of people are calling the 6800 GT this generation's Ti 4200, being a card that has the same set of features and pipelines as the flagship graphics card, only clocked slightly slower. But again, there is a huge difference because somewhere between the Geforce 4 line of cards and the upcoming Geforce 6800 cards, someone decided to double the price points of each segment of video cards. It wasn't that long ago when 300 dollars could fetch you the top of the line video card, but now they're asking 500 - 600 dollars? People are saying the 6800 GT is going to be a killer value but I think they're forgetting the fact that it's still going to cost 400 dollars. I'd hardly call that a great deal.

[ripfire]

It's possible that the nVidia might be able to produce drivers that will optimize some shader performance in the future. It might be possible that some of the shader instructions can be optimized on the fly to include program flow control. This would definitely put the NV40 one up over the R4xx when it comes to PS2.0 or PS3.0.

[voodoo285]

In addition, their core is running at 525MHz on the X800 XT Platinum Edition. This pales in comparison to GeForce 6800 Ultra’s paltry 400MHz core.

I mean oh please like clock speed makes a jot of difference. Have you guys not learned anything from what is going on with intel and amd. AMD slags intel for quoting ghz refferences so now intel are switching to model numbers. MHz mean jack all u silly people.

As for the cards i reckon Nvidia is going to get the performance crown until product refresh day in another 6 - 10 months then ATI will be the god again. Either way ill be buying ATI coz lets face it i bet the 2D image quality is still going to be far superior. So that means better looking desktop dvds and games coz at the end of the day all 3D frames are converted to 2D for display on your monitor.

ATI Forever

[psh1ft]

S'kinda amusing... Nvidia's reaction to the underpowered FX (and an ATI spanking) is an overpowered new card that's not gonna restore anyone's lost faith.

The prices will inevitably be ridiculous with such an overdose of 'cutting-edge' features - so 'cutting-edge' no-one'll be using them 'til the card's on its way out. Add that to the fact that you'll prob'ly be needing a new PSU, a couple of free PCI slots and a high tolerance for Nvidia bullshit; all while the card's going slower than the ATI... who honestly sees them winning much support? Just who is going to buy it?!

ATI jus' sat back and bumped up the clockspeed of their old core, strapped on some extra memory, and then, I expect, had a good ol' laugh cuz its '02 R300 still has the measure of Nvidia's latest and greatest. I expect they've something more 'revolutionary' lined up for when it's needed, as opposed to releasing it now as some sort of publicity stunt. ;]

ATI is doing good business - lower development costs, lower production costs, lower prices/more sales, meanwhile Nvidia is counting wafers-per-die with its new-age waste of time. Hah! Nvidia should have learnt a lesson from 3Dfx, who saw their monopoly wiped out by an upstart as they rested on their laurels...... ;D

[Trogdor]

Okay, concerning those last two posts. I for one would certainly consider Nvidia's cards provided that they can get the price down. Right now, I'm not considering either one. By the time the price drops, performance will likely have improved. SM3 is also a lot more similar to SM2 than SM2 was to SM1, so developers might actually support it sooner rather than later. Wait and see again.

As for the clock speed issue, you're both right and wrong. In the AMD/Intel fight, it has been shown that clockspeed is certainly not the only factor. Same thing happened with NV3x vs. R3xx: Nvidia had their GPUs running at 500 MHz with the 5800 Ultra and 475 MHz with the 5950 Ultra, while ATI was way down in the 325 MHz to 412 MHz range. Clearly, clock speed is not everything. However, we know a lot more about AMD and Intel architectures than we do of Nvidia and ATI architectures. On the surface, though, both the X800 and 6800 architectures look pretty similar: 16 pixel pipelines, 6 vertex pipelines, 256-bit memory, etc. Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of differences, but I don't think that the 6800 and X800 architectures are so different that clockspeed can be discounted. The comparisons look more like AMD K6 vs. Intel Pentium MMX instead of Athlon XP/64 vs. Pentium 4. Besides, all other things being equal, more clockspeed (and memory speed) is always better.

Of course, FiringSquad could very easily provide us with an answer to this question, assuming they still have the 6800 Ultra and X800 XT cards around: Simply underclock the GPU speed on the ATI card until it's running at the same speed as the 6800 Ultra. It would probably still be a little faster in the DX8/9 games, but I doubt we'd see the same margins of victory. Too bad FS probably had to send the boards back... Maybe we can get this sort of test done when the retail cards are released? How about it, Brandon?

[psh1ft]

Mm... Still strongly of the opinion that Nvidia have made another mistake. Sure Nvidia'll pick up the slack in driver revisions, but that's not now and doesn't discount any of the other negatives stacked against them. The price will almost certainly not drop significantly within the year cuz o' the difficulty they're having producing these things, the power requirements won't change, and the damn thing won't get any smaller.

Your point about SM2/3 is a valid one (Far Cry's developers only spent a few weeks implementing SM3, I believe), but we won't see SM3 support to the point of excluding cards without it for quite some time, as has been the case with SM2. Furthermore, I'm inclined to think ATI's implementation of SM2 is comparable to Nvidia's SM2, with the switch up to SM3 resulting in a meaningful loss of performance, though this is obviously speculation.

As you say, time will tell.