yakk My comment applies to both of them, meaning nvidia started sandbagging performance because they didn't have enough competition and purposefully limited their product line performance. Then upgrading them back up again with their "Super" branding where needed to address competition.



Now AMD is officially issuing an artificially lower spec product in the 5600xt while withholding full engineered performance to see nvidia's response before unlocking performance, seemingly only if needed. If AMD did not need to unlock this performance then they probably wouldn't either since that would increase their yield and lower production costs.



This limited duopoly situation only looks to be magnifying these business practices.

Again, not really what happened. Nvidia chose to deliver a certain amount of performance until there was competition, so they then released a new line of cards. This is not the first time they've done something like this, hence why we've had GS, GT, GTS, GTX, GTX+, Ultra models and what not. Even the Ti branding is being used quite liberally now to fill in spots where the competition is ahead.I doubt this does either of what you claim, but please, provide some proof and then we can discuss it. Right now, you're just flinging muck to see if it'll stick.You can call it bad business practice and that I can agree on, but that's a different matter entirely. However, as you've pointed out, we only have two choices when it comes to buying graphics cards...I can agree on the last point and it's been a rotten situation for too long, but no-one is willing to step up and compete with Nvidia. I doubt Intel will be the knight in shining armour that people have been waiting for.