I love how you stick and point but what about xbit and hardwarecanucks? These hardware sites are lying I suppose.
I don't need 5000 cards to tell you bandwidth is the culprit in minimum fps and even average frame rates when you compare to cards before it. Obviously you do because you've never understood how cards based on rasterizer operate in game.
I'm sticking around because, to be honest, this thread is full of lulz. Also, it's not hard to point out your silly logic and behavior. TBH, I could read both sides of this "debate" without knowing a thing about video cards. After doing so, it'd be pretty obvious that, well, I should be pointing at you.
I never said the sites you posted are lying. I think it's perfectly reasonable to accept, at first, that the 5xxx series are bandwidth limited. HOWEVER, BFG has done testing with the 5xxx cards that shows there's a good chance they need to look deeper. Perhaps it's not just bandwidth limitation. They're all reliable sources...you just tend to ignore things you don't want to hear. Sorry if you have an issue with BFG, but his tests make sense and can be pretty easily replicated by anyone else (I don't believe he's the only one that's tested it).
For what you're claiming, YOU'D NEED A 5xxx CARD. Where is the results of the "testing" you've done? Yes, that's right. You said you've done "extensive testing" yourself. On what? Something that isn't a 5xxx card? Then, to the level you're arguing, your points are partially irrelevant. Video cards aren't all identical, which I'd hope you'd understand (but you don't seem to, as you think the 4xxx series and 5xxx series should be compared like apples to apples).
BTW, linking to other websites IS NOT EXTENSIVE TESTING. However, that's all you've provided us. Do you see the issue here? We all do. You obviously do not.
I don't understand everything about video cards. But, based on reading everything everyone has provided on here, you are obviously a stubborn idiot.