lol its fairly simple, the g92 is just g80 on smaller die + they added a few texture units thats about it.
the gtx is simple a current gtx + the extra texture units the new core has. the only things missing on the GT are the extra 16 whole pipes. remember gts current 96 pipes vs gtx 128 pipes. the gt already has one more unit active, the gts might ahve all 128, the gtx won't have ANY more than 128. it physically can't be much faster than a current gtx, it will have marginally higher clocks.
as for loadsamoney, lol, the new GT kills the gtx? i can't remember if it even beats it in one game at 1680x1050/1920x1200. the problem with internet people is the tendancy to exagerate. "new card obliterates old card (small print, its 0..01% faster)". kills is overstating it. the GT doesn't best an old GTS in every single game, far from it. plenty of games the GTS is STILL ahead. sure reviews use NO AA, or ridiculous resolutions, EVEN in those best case scenarios the GT is rarely more than 10% ahead of the gts.
if you buy anything from a 2900 pro up to a 8800gts 640 (which includes the GT) you will basically not see much of a difference in playability of 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 resolutions, and everything below is ridiculously fast on all those cards. 1920x1200 is basically still noticeably faster in newer games on the gtx/ultra, and a couple games in lower res aswell. anyone that says different is exagerating/doesn't OWN these cards.
stats can be twisted to show ANYTHING you want. actual experience using these cards will give you a vastly different view.
(or even a GT if the GTX is a long way away)
that was the point I was making....or trying too
