Since PC gaming is all about choice, you don't have to spend the 1200$ on the 9800 GX2 quad-sli to get the 35fps in crysis very high 1920x1200 (1200P) which no console could even DREAM of running, you can just spend 150$ and get a 9600 GT, which runs crysis pretty well at medium on a decently high resolution, that would last you a while.

The extra videocards are never really taken advantage of. Also, although Nvidia is on top right now, it's really gotten to them. Since they ARE on top, they let the 9 series slide, it really really sucks. The only card that deserves the 9 series name is the 9600 GT, the 9800GTX is pretty much a bit more efficient rehash of the 8800 GTX, and the 9800 GX2 is like two 8800 GT's slapped together, it's nothing special.

I hope Nvidia gets their act together, or Ati pulls ahead with something leaps and bounds better then the 9 series, just as the 8 series did to the 7.

AMD purchase ATI it seems like they never release the highest end card first and Nvidia is one step ahead. The funny thing about is that most(almost all of the games)out at the time don't take advantage of the features of the new card.

By the time the next iteration of cards comes out the developers are just starting to use some of the older features. That is why sometimes having the newest card isn't always the wisest finiancial choice.

if you can afford to why not?

http://img120.imageshack.us...

now if they only over clocked that QX9650 to show us some real scores......im still pulling better benchmarks with two 8800gtx and a watercooled QX9650 than all of their results.