Me neither, in fact most benchmark published -for what it's worth- show a slightly better performance from the 9800 GTX at all but those esoteric resolutions/settings where vram actually makes a difference. But no one plays at those settings so it's of little relevancy. IMHO the lukewarm reception had more to do with the fact that the 9800 series was not the mega-uber-OMG power monster that many had predicted. It's basically a G92 with faster clocks, "faster" being the key word. It also OC's better than other G92's, maybe an indication that nVidia had originally designed it with even faster stock clocks, which is reminiscent of the original 8800 GTS (G80). I often read stuff like "a new-generation card like the 9800 GTX should have been much faster than the preceding generation". Yeah but it's not a new generation, it's just a new series designation. nVidia's goof was to not introduce the 9800 series when it launched the G92, the 8800 GT should have been called 9800 GT, the 8800 GTS 512 should have been plain 9800 GTS, looks like it just dawned upon them very recently that the market was just as confused as they were, and thank God they did not release their newest card as the 8800 GTX 512 like I suspect they initially had intended to. So one could expect that the difference between the 8800 GTS 512 and the 9800 GTX should be about the same as the difference between the original 8800 GTS 640 and the 8800 GTX: not spectacular. But there is one difference: the 9800 GTX is reputably the best overclocker nVidia has ever produced but the same can't be said of the 8800 GTS 512 therefore the 9800 GTX has the potential to perform significantly faster than the GTS 512. It's more difficult to gauge the difference between the 9800 GTX and the 8800 GTX because of differing architectures but one can expect that since the 9800 GTX is obviously meant to be the natural successor of the 8800 GTX then there should be an improvement in performance, but that may not be obvious in a 32-bit OS or DX9.