Once again, you're deliberately glossing over the fact that ATI can create a less expensive video card because their GPU has fewer transistors and they use GDDR5 which eliminates the need for a 512-bit bus. ATI can sell their cards cheaper because they're less expensive to produce. And how can you not take price into consideration? Nvidia still had the fastest available video card even after the 4870 was released, but they certainly couldn't keep selling them for $650. They were the ones forced to drop their price because the much cheaper 4870 could deliver 80% of the GTX280s performance at less than 50% of its price. Nvidia stopped trying to charge $650 for them because they knew that nobody would pay that much after the 4870 was released. Again I ask, do you have a detailed breakdown showing the ATI division's profit/loss statements? ie- separate from AMD as a whole. And Nvidia's as well to show possible recession trends? What that little diatribe had to do with the 48X0 series forcing Nvidia to lower price on its GT200 series is beyond me. No, the 4890 and GTX275 are roughly equal. Some sites put the 4890 ahead, some put the 275 ahead. X-bit labs, which has performed the most extensive testing on both cards I've seen to date, puts the 4890 ahead at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, the GTX275 ahead at 2560x1600. Those findings also agree with the AT review. Which could very well be due to the depressed state of the world's economy. Purchasing a new video card definitely falls into the "disposable income" category, which is in somewhat short supply these days. I'd imagine that Nvidia's own sales are down as well.