yeah, for DX10 games such as crysis and bioshock, the demand on DX10 capable gpus is without a doubt more, so having much above 12x10 even isnt really plausible, especially on max settings, if you want your framerates to be somewhat fluid anyhow... as far as the 19x12 res though, that was mainly picked out due to where the gt and gtx start to deviate in framerates a lot more in dx9... before that point though, theyre pretty much identical for performance, within a few fps... and the 2 gtxs are the only cards faster than the gt
i agree with what youre saying though... im just pointing out that the cpu tends to have very little impact on the actual gameplay (you noted a difference of <1 fps in all 3 games, a gpu bottleneck in dx10, definetly)... unless youve got a cpu from 2001 or so... then your cpu is definetly a bottleneck at all resolutions, as would be your whole system most likely... ...but even single core cpus should be more than capable of handling a current game above 30fps at a somewhat high res even... looking at the xp 2500+ from an article thg did reviewing dated cpu performance in games (it was a s462 xp anyhow, if that wasnt the exact model)... even for as old as it is, it was still able to run fairly newer games at decent resolutions and framerates... the cpu was definetly a bottleneck, no doubt, but the framerates were still definetly playable too... and with as fast as cpus are now compared to then, cpu performance for gaming is more of a nonissue now even, too
however, with the introduction of realistic physics and ai and all that... then the cpu starts to play a more significant role... so, yeah
i guess its mainly the difference between dx9 and dx10 then more than anything... current gpus cant handle dx10 very well at all except at somewhat lower resolutions, but theyre excellent when it comes to dx9