Another review :
http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/NVIDIA_GeForce_GTX_280_Preview/5872.html
It wins 3/4 tests against the 9800GX2 but gets spanked in crysis. What seems clear is if you are gaming above 1920x1200 then the G200 definitely makes sense.
What you dont see in these 2560x1600 res benchmarks is the random slowdowns you get with the 9800GX2.
With most new games my GX2 cant handle 2560x1600, especially with AA/AF applied. It has the GPU power to do a way better job, but the 512MB usable VRAM and 256-Bit bus completely cripples it.
Mass Effect, UT3, GRID, Crysis - all completely unplayable at 2560x1600 because of the memory problems. Even the
menu screens are slideshows, under 10FPS.
REALLY dodgy how these review sites show these games getting way better frame rates at this high res than what the people who own the GX2 cards get.
I can run into this bottleneck on 1920x1200 with some games and enough AA.
When i get GTX280 i plan to do a thread showing this problem with the GX2, and comparing it with the 280.
playing at that resolution would surely make most games unplayable anyway
Hardly, most high-end cards are made for such resolutions (excluding GX2). They're not
that high anyway... even consoles come near these days with 1080p. And please tell me you dont have SLI'd 8800GT's and something silly like 1280x1024 screen res?
Anyone who gets a 280 and dont have 1920x1200 res or higher will seriously be wasting there money... unless they plan to keep it for atleast 2 years, or are buying for Crysis alone.
Even my 8800GTX could run almost any game at 1920x1200 on full settings, most with AA/AF, and could run any Source engine based game at 2560x1600 maxed out.