Heh... I don't use Vista, and it was a wise decision. Even after SP1 Vista's performance in games sucks compared to XP. Even if the performance difference was about 2 fps, I still don't see any reason to upgrade to Vista. It's harder to use, constantly asks for permission to do everything(which is extremely annoying) and doesn't really offer anything new or significant to an average user. DX10 performance sucks, and doesn't look better than DX9. I don't intend to get Vista until XP will stop being supported, which wont happen any time soon. Vista is like World of Warcraft in the gaming industry.... I don't play WoW, and I don't use Vista.

Unless AMD drops the price to around $300, there is no competition. nVidia still outperforms ATI in most games, and all they have to do is lower the price on the GTX to around $250-300 to decimate ATI. No one in their right mind will go for the X2, if the GTX's price falls down, and nVidia can afford to do that since they are coming out with a new lineup soon. ATI on the other hand just released these new cards so they cant afford to cut the prices.

More upcoming CPU price drops for both Intel and AMD !! Sweeeeett!!! Who cares who is better? Intel or AMD... I don't give a damn. The important thing is all this competition will make the prices fall like crazy. I'll finally get that Q6600 for cheap.

Heh.... only 6 frames difference between the GT and my GTS. Good thing I didn't sell it to buy a GT. No card can run this thing above 40fps with everything on high. All of a sudden people who recently spent hundreds on new cards are already outdated and need to upgrade. Pretty lame if you ask me. Well, I'm not spending a penny more on this stuff unless I absolutely have to. I'll play Crysis a year from now when I can buy a card that will run this at 60fps at max settings for $200 or so. Plenty other games to play right now.

BioShock for the PC * + More affordable retail price * + Supports both gamepad and mouse/keyboard controls * + Supports DirectX 10 and looks better than the Xbox 360 version on higher-end PCs * - Not all PCs meet the minimum system requirements. * - Requires Windows Vista and a DirectX 10 graphics card to looks its best (This is irrelevant, because DX10 doesn't make the game look any better, and the game looses performance/fps when ran in DX10. Running Bioshock in DX10 is simply NOT WISE - therefore it is not a minus) * - Users have reported sound issues, graphical anomalies, and crashing.

It's amusing to see how the "allmighty" Radeon wipes the floor with 8800's in XP, but chokes in Vista loosing badly to Nvidia. Looks like my Nvidia investment will be paying off for a long time to come, especially in the future. Besides, Bioshock is one of the FEW games where Radeon beats my 8800 anyway.... Good thing I didn't get an ATI. One thing I find very dissapointing is how my 640mb GTS looses to 320mb... How is this even logical? I cant see it... I could have went with 320mb and saved a lot of money! I feel like I've been cheated. :(

Just another way to milk every last penny from the PSP franchise. Sony Playstation is dying, so sony is trying to squeeze whatever they can out of both PSP, PS2 and PS3 to hold out for as long as they can. Buying the NEW PSP would be a foolish act no matter who you are and what your beliefs are. It's a waste of money - pure and simple. It would be much smarter to buy the OLD PSP much cheaper used on E-Bay or "new in box" elsewhere. Either way it's a much smarter buy. Let's face it.. Most of us buy the PSP(If we buy it) for emulation of SEGA, SNES, PS1, etc.. If that is your main goal, the old PSP will fit that purpose just fine. The rest are wasting their money either way... Old PSP or New.

I said it before and I'll say it now.... I'm GLAD I got my 8800GTS 640mb 4 months ago... It was, and still is, one of the best if not the best for the money, and offers better performance than ATI in games that most people care about. Although I think that this card was truly a best buy when I bought it. Right now, I don't know if it would be a smart choice to buy any high end card since the competition is heating up, and a customer who will wait 4-6 more months will only win in the long run.

Once again, it's clearly visible that one should get a card that fits his/her gaming needs, and not the card that the synthetic benchmarks hype. Who cares that ATI beats nVidia in 3DMark? I sure dont. My vote goes for nVidia. Why? Because my 8800GTS, despite being much older than ATI's new offerings gives more fps in Oblivion, Stalker and COH. I originally bought my card for the above games, and it is still paying off by offering better performance than ATI. I noticed a tendency here... Every time a very good game comes out, it is usually optimized for nVidia. (There were exceptions like HL2, but that's rare) So, it doesn't matter than ATI might be making "overall better" cards. What matters, is that whenever I get an nVidia, I usually get a better performance in GAMES (not 3dmark), and the card "lasts" for more years than ATI's offerings. Oh, well that... And nVidia's logo looks better than ATI. I like green but red is not my favorite colour. nVidia's pixie/mermaid looks nice, but ATI's freaky red headed chick doesn't.

Just shows one more time that DX10 is a scheme to milk people of their hard earned money, and make them buy DX10 cards... THERE'S BARELY ANY DIFFERENCE! In fact, on some screenshots, DX9 actually looks better! There is no visual improvements, but DX10 is already doing what is was designed to do. Makes the game run slow on one of the best cards available today, making people willing to buy an even more expensive card just to keep up. I'm disappointed and pissed. I bet my 8800GTS will already be obsolete 6 months from now, and not because games will look better.. Simply because DX10 is designed in such a way where my card simply cant run them at a good frame rate.