I don't think there are really any outstanding issues with g80 either. I have a geforce 8400m gs on my notebook and its awesome. Doom3 runs fluid like quake3 , even at ultra quality . Name any feature, you have it. Yes, there were a few performance regressions with g80 sometime back, as pointed out by phoradeonix and they were resolved reasonably quickly (many thanks for that!). And they were professional at it - they didn't fsck around introducing superficial problems like watermarks, or drop support from their workstation line or something. We didn't have to wait 2-4 generations for a driver like amd/ati! And I believe the only feature missing at the moment from g80 is xvmc, and personally I don't mind it as I am no HD person .

And anyone having second thoughts on g80 vs g70/60, please note that g80 is a completely new arch with stream processors. HDR I believe wasn't there in g70/60 (at least not on my geforce 7400 go ). And only g80 can run cuda, if you want to utilize it for some serious pure computing power. I believe that there was a small gap between g60/g70, but g80 is a completely different beast.

The truth is this - I am urging amd/ati users to ponder about the facts. The fact is that nvidia drivers, even 5 years ago (when i started using linux in 2002 on my onboard geforce2 ) were better than ati drivers in current state. Leave the compositing stuff. And nvidia apparently has more competent and enthusiast linux driver developers, and in number too, than ati drivers. So would any ati/amd optimist justify their optimism . So long waiting till 2010 for a fully functional hd2900xxxt driver (with no avivo ).

And to be very honest, I am in this thread, not much as a unsponsored advertiser for nvidia, but to add more salt to the wounds of amd/ati frustrated users. (After all, its a sarcastic thread .)

Real men use nvidia cards .