Okay, I'm not sure why you're nit-picking my post. My point was about the GTX 590 and onwards, not the preceding generations. Their only purpose was to build up a case. But I thought I'd respond anyway. Well, it's my comparison, so yes, in fact.. I do get to choose. Define "marginally". It was no more than a 2% overclock on an "OC" edition card that typically adds 10$ to the stock price. Except this time, it was 200$.. which is why an XTX was a good way to tell whether someone was a hardware enthusiast or not. You can quote links all you like - the MSRP wasn't correct in the 7800 GTX 512's case. Thanks for the history lesson, but I was alive in 2007, as well. Yes, I did. I didn't have room for the HD 5970, because the HD 5000 series was more of an inbetween than a rival, since the GTX 200 series was GPU-for-GPU for powerful and the GTX 400 series was late. Yes, HD 7970 started at 550$, but when GTX 680 came out the price dropped to 500$.. which is what counts. (I can accept "tend to be cyclic", but "tend to cyclic" simply doesn't sound right.) Yes, they tend to be. Yes, it is a general rule. That is precisely the issue. You're missing the point with your lax generalizations. The only reason graphics cards won't cost 2,000$ is because the international over-arching consumer hyperbole of demand cannot extend that far. At a certain point, raising a price on a product with a hard-demand inclination does lower its demand, and no one is going to pay 2,000$ for a graphics card. This does not mean that we're not already in deep shit. 1,000$ for a graphics card that would have cost 500$ 3 years ago, is ridiculous. The cycle has clearly changed. You're making my point for me. Yes, prices have been going up for some time now. This is bad. Yes, a company that priced its cards at 2,500$ could not compete and now no longer exists. Miracles do occur. And ATi's All-in-Wonder cards are also extinct.