Keysplayr, I look forward to your benchmarks.
Rollo, the fact is that if you own an R9{7|8}00Pro card, you probably bought it for its AA/AF performance. I don't see why you WOULD buy an R9{7|8}00 Pro card if all you care about is the non-AA/AF performance.
I think it comes down to the simple fact that gaming with AA/AF is better than gaming without it, so if you can do it without taking a huge speed hit, you will. The Radeon 9800 Pro and to a lesser extent the 9700 Pro provide this speed at 1280x1024 and 1024x768, but provide lower performance in non-AA/AF situations, where IMHO, the 9% lead at 1280x960 that was shown in Anand's benchmarks is totally irrelevant.
Please Rollo, tell me how 132FPS is significantly (or even noticeably) better than 120FPS at 1600x1200x32 Max Detail No AA/AF.
Keep in mind, that you do indeed hit a usefulness ceiling when it comes to raw FPS. In all current benchmarked games, there is little to no relevant speed difference in the cards in non-AA/AF situations. In AA/AF setups, things change drastically, and the Radeon far outperforms the R9800 Pro. I fail to see how you can justify claiming that the Radeon 9{7|8}00 Pro is slower than the FX5800 Ultra.
Sure, you bought your 9700 Pro for non-AA/AF performance because the only comparison card out was the Ti4600, which isn't comparable in either situation. However, if you have the choice today of FX5800 Ultra and R9700 Pro, and you pick the 9700 Pro, then you are either an ATI fanboy, interested in the AA/AF performance, or you're ignorant. Of the three, I don't put you in the first or third category, meaning you would likely make an educated decision and buy the 9700Pro for its AA/AF performance, and not for its raw non-AA/AF performance.