Hard still gave the 295 the nod:
"Albeit the GTX 295 does not suffer some of the graphical bugs that plague the 4870 X2 in Fallout 3
that give the true gaming advantage to the GTX 295. While it may not have won the performance crown in every game here today, it did manage to match the Radeon HD 4870 X2 for the highest playable in-game settings in each game we tested."
Hard also did their AA comparison with nVidia using 8xQ
AA, vs ATi 8x MSAA.
The 295 is going to be a great 1920x card and you may want GTX 280 SLi for 2560x with regular 8x AA or greater. The X2 will probably be faster with regular 8x MSAA enabled and the 295 will likely catch up when you use "enhance" and nVidia's 8x-16x CSAA. Personally, I can't tell the difference between MSAA and CSAA. So I see zero reason not to use CSAA.
The 295 did do fine @ 2560x when limited to 4xAA in FC2. The X2 exhibited crappy 24FPS mins with the same settings while the 295 put up a much more playable min of 39.
I'd love to see that same test with 4xAA "enhanced" to 8 or 16x CSAA from the nVidia CP.
I consider their Warhead test pointless because both cards put up under 30FPS average and 18-20FPS mins. That's unplayable in my book. Personally, I won't run a game with any settings that result in less than a 30FPS min.
It will be interesting to see how it has shaped up @ release. I'll be watching for all the reviews and paying close attention to min frames. Like I said before, when both cards put up playable averages I go right to looking for the better mins. I'd rather a 30FPS min and a 60FPS average, than a 70FPS average and 23FPS mins.