Right now, ATI has faster hardware, especially with DirectX9 shaders and such... I really don't mean to belabor the issue, but just saying it has 'faster hardware' doesn't really tell the whole story. As I mentioned above, it depends on what you want to do with it. ATI does currently render single-textured DirectX 9 data faster than NVidia hardware does and also apparently has an edge in it's ani-aliasing quality capabilities. But NVidia hardware has better OpenGL drivers/support and renders multi-textured (games mostly) data faster. For something like D|S, which (currently at least) only does single-texturing but runs under OpenGL, the two cards are probably roughly equivilant (though if given the choice, I'd prefer more robust/reliable OpenGL and perfectly adequite speed over potential OpenGL issues but faster editor-window rendering). They both make great hardware... I don't think buying either is a bad choice - particularly if your current video solution is more than 2 years old or is integrated on the motherboard. As for Tom's site... I don't really have any bias one way or another about it. I am mostly looking for facts/specs and that info is there - it's pretty easy to skip over any editorial bias he might have. Personally, I found the xbit info/site to be at least if not more biased than anything I read at Tom's... that guy's an ATI evangelist ;). Anyway, there are plenty of similar sites out there and it doesn't hurt to visit several of them and average the results of what you read to level out any bias. Thanks for the extra links.

Cinema4D Plugins (Home of Riptide, Riptide Pro, Undertow, Morph Mill, KyamaSlide and I/Ogre plugins) Poser products Freelance Modelling, Poser Rigging, UV-mapping work for hire.