Hang in there Rivan, the wait is totally worth it.
I'm upgrading from an 8800GT 512 MB to this, and the difference is amazing. I have a Dell 24" widescreen, and am FINALLY able to play at 1920x1200 with liquid smooth frame rates. I don't have benchmark numbers for any of these games, but I played around in each game for about 30 min each, and the difference is remarkable.
CPU: E8400 @ 3.6Ghz
Ram: 4 Gigs
OS: Windows XP Pro
Far Cry 2:
On the 8800GT I played at 1280x1024 with Ultra details, and it was "okay", lots of slowdown in heavy fights, but it was manageable.
With the 4890 I'm at 1920x1200 and Ultra details and max settings (8xaa, 16xaf), the game is so smooth and fast it's astounding. Haven't had any slowdowns at all in heavy fights with lots of action on the screen.
Crysis Warhead:
Everything looks and feels smooth at 1920x1200 with 8xAA and Enthusiast settings for everything. I don't know how many FPS i'm getting, but it felt super responsive and there weren't any slow downs on the two levels I messed around in. (The one with the crashed Jet you have to reach, and the level where you start out facing the frozen aircraft carrier.)
*EDIT*
I didn't have my Catalyst Control Center setup correctly when I made the post above. Crysis wasn't running at 8xAA, it was at 2xAA. For the record, I can't really tell the difference unless I really look carefully, and 1920x1200 Enthusiast settings at 2xAA and 16xAF runs really well on this card.
Fallout 3:
Same story as above, everything maxed out, looks great and feels liquid smooth, no stuttering at 1920x1200. All edges are crisp with the 8xAA and 16xAF, it is stunning.
If you have a 24" Widescreen, you owe it to yourself to get a card that can play games at 1920x1200... it is tremendous, seriously. I would have paid full price for this card had I known it would make this much of a difference, but getting it for $200 makes it that much sweeter. I'm sure the story is the same with a Nvidia 275, but I'm glad I got this 4890 for as cheap as I did.
THANKS OP!