TO be honest, fps at one point in a demo means just about jack shizzel, just like performance in an entirely sythetic benchmark doesn't mean much.
Though in general, there really shouldn't be ANY point in that benchmark that is slower on the 480gtx.
As I keep trying to tell people, the 480gtx would have been a complete failure at 30% faster across the board, end of the day its success comes in terms of business, making a HUMOUNGOUS loss on every single card makes it an entire failure. Making it cost 50% more means even if it made profit, AMD would sell 5 times as many cards anyway, so it would still gain market share and still make AMD more money and would still be the far more succesful architecture.
But the 480gtx will be slower than was meant to be, it's just going from horrifically bad to absolutely disasterous, there was never a single question it was a bad card.
People keep seeming to forget the 280/285gtx were the fastest cores around, quite easily and in terms of profit, sales numbers, market share and manufacturing, they were failures compared to a far more successful 4870/4890.
The 6 months late isn't what made Fermi bad, just worse than it was, which was a horrible situation to start with.
If AMD are getting around 80 cores a wafer, and Nvidia are getting maybe 8-10, per core its around 800-1000% more expensive to make a 480gtx than a 5870........... thats where the cards success simply ends, performance doesn't matter, its already a massive failure when your core on the same process and 60% bigger, costs up to 1000% more to produce, at most it should cost around 70%(yield is naturally lower on larger cores, so it should cost a little over the size increase).
