First they cave to Intel allowing them to put SLI on their chipsets
Also, you do realize that was an EXTREMELY good thing, right? Nvidia chipsets were always inferior to Intel chipsets in performance and overclocking ability. Additionally, Nvidia was only in the chipset business so they could force users to buy more proprietary junk from them, because if they don't... sorry, no SLi! Standardization is a good
thing. Now you can run CrossFire and SLi on the same standardized, stable motherboard with an Intel chipset. How is that a bad thing?
Really!? Memory peformance alone was better on Nvidia than Intel chipsets. And NOT ALL Intel chipsets were ideal for OCing anything to include Celerons. Then there is also the fact that Intel pre X58/55 line chipsets almost NEVER has 2 16x PCIe slots as they alsmot always fell to 8x/8x with 2 slots populated witha GPU.
Well, I can always count on you to shoot me down, even when the topic is dead. Thanks.
As for the rest. Woo, one article. I don't even know what to think about reviews any more, I've seen it happen too many times where people can pull any article out of anywhere to prove anything. Also, they don't include X48 or P45, both of which had hugely improved memory controllers over P/X 3x. I know that not all Intel chipsets were monster OCers, but Nvidia chipsets weren't really ever incredible Overclockers. 680i was good for its time and that's about it. Notice how Nvidia chipsets don't really hold many overclocking records?
As for PCIe, it wasn't necessary at the time- The fastest cards out there didn't really need the bandwidth of PCIe 2.0 and were 2.0- the 9800GT, more or less the biggest mainstream card at the time, was perfectly fine running at x8. For those with faster cards, Intel had X48, which had 32 PCIe lanes.