Usually, once newer cards release (or, most any NEW componentry really), the older card's/component's prices hit rock-bottom generally & definitely drop down in price below the latest-greatest/state-of-the-art unit!
True, but that's for cards that are manufactured using the cheaper parts. Existing boards will have been built with more expensive parts. There's only so much profit margin the suppliers can knock off.
Now, the ONLY thing I am confused about now is that Tom's Hardware Pages review of it today (03/07/2003) stated the 5600 Ultra performs less than a GeForce Ti4600... what's going on? OR, did I read that wrong in the conclusion sections there??
It is a bit confusing in places isn't it

If I were nVidia, I'd be worried that my brand new 5600 Ultra card is beaten by ATis older 9500 card.
It does seem as if changing the driver optimisations from Balanced to Performance have a huge impact on frame rate. From being slower than a Ti4200 to faster than a Ti4800.
In order for the card to jump up in that much performance, there must be sections of the scene that are either not rendered, or rendered at lower resolution. For most gaming applications, this won't be an option that players will use.
I'll admit that I don't know what changes actually occur between Balanced and Performance modes, but if they are adjusting the final rendered output to get higher frame rates I'm pretty sure that the gaming crowd are not going to warm to nVidias new technology.
Blimey, I've been going on a bit of an anti-nVidia rant lately haven't I?

It's not intentional, it's just at the moment, I don't see any decent products coming out of their doors.
No doubt in 6 omnths time I'll be saying the same things about ATi, as nVidia regain the performance and features crown :p