Maybe you don't see a difference but there is a difference and for me it's massive. It's the line between a slideshow and a somewhat bearable experience. Now between 50 and 60 that's another thing. Anyway you don't pay $500 for 4 fps and never said that. But paying an extra $50-100 or so would be totally worth it if you are paying $450 (say HD7950) in the frst place. 15% more $ for 15% more fps is OK. Personally I don't spend that much, far from it, but even in my price range I'd pay x% more for x% more performance. IMO your case is a falacy, like I said because there's no card that will give you 30-34 fps in all games. On some games, a particular card might be enough, in others it won't and let's not start talking about settings. So like I said a card that s faster it's faster and always will. It's not my bussiness or your bussiness to decide if those extra $100 are worth it for the people who are willing to pay $400++ for a card. When you say "anyone who will pay $500 to go from 30 to 34 fps in most of his games an utter fool" you are calling a fool to ALL enthusiasts, because that's what you get. A 15% increment no matter if it's at 30 fps or at 200, its a substantial difference and worth paying for some people. At 30 fps is going to be ever more important than at 200 plain and simple. According to your logic overclocking is useless, because you'll never achieve much more than 15% more actual performance and the best you would do is obtain those extra 3-4 fps. And this and what I'm saying are not mutually exclusive either. I'd do the same, but that does not mean that a 15% difference is meaningless. If you have to choose between HD7970 and GTX580 for the exact same price (and you can pay that price) you'll go with the Radeon. If the difference is 15% or less, much of the same.