Freon, I get (some of) my data from many of the sites listed above. Just as examples, take a look at this link: http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2003q4/geforcefx-5950ultra/index.x?pg=2 ...which is a review of NVidia's latest top-end card. At the top of that page, you see a chart listing the tech-specs of the chipsets (I'll use cards/chipsets interchangeably here, even though they are 2 different animals). Basically, the ATI chipset has 8 pixel pipelines and NVidia only has 4 so the 'peak fill rate' for PIXELS per second is obviously higher on the ATI cards. Now look at the next column... note that the ATI chipset only has one texture unit per pixel-pipeline (x 8 pipelines = 8 texture units) while the NVidia chipset hs 2 texture units per pixel-pipelines (x 4 pipelines = 8 texture units). The next column shows the maximum fill rate for 'textured pixels'... and as you can see, the fastest ATI card doesn't even beat out the slowest NVidia card. How does the NVidia keep up with only 4 pixel-pipelines? read on... Now check the memory bandwidth columns... again, only the 2 top-of-the-line ATI cards beat the bottom-of-the-line NVidia card. The top end NVidia card has a nearly 30% advantage in memory bandwidth. Have a look at the charts below that for the results... as I stated a few times above already, for single-texturing, ATI wins. For multi-texturing (blending multiple textures on any particular polygon as is done in many modern games), NVidia wins. The next page is a good read too, which talks about NVidia's advantage in OpenGL-based games/apps and it's shortcommings in DirectX9-based apps/games. The rest of that review covers benchmark scores and you'll find NVidia hardware on top in many of those too. Overall, it's a pretty good, un-biased review and on the conclusion page: http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2003q4/geforcefx-5950ultra/index.x?pg=12 ...you'll see that the author picks the ATI card based on the things HE wants from a $500 card. So you can see that I'm not trying to gloss over the fact that the ATI card has some advantages, I'm just pointing out that the NVidia cards have advantages as well. Generalized statements like "but ATI's current hardware is faster than Nvidia's all-round. Especially in games" is just not true, or at the least, misleading. Again, my "current" card of choice is NVidia. I've owned several in the past as they've dominated the field for performance until only recently. I've also owned ATI cards and (aside from some OpenGL driver concerns), don't have anything bad to say about them either. When it comes time for me to upgrade, I'll evaluate the latest offerings again and choose the one that suits my needs. If that's an ATI or S3 or Matrox card, so be it - my product loyalty only lasts as long as you can keep my confidence in your product ;). At the risk of repeating myself, I'm NOT here to defend NVidia or sell their hardware for them. I'm just trying to fill in BOTH sides of the story. I don't care to particpate in "my hardware is better than your hardware" type discussions (and don't want this to devolve into that), so I think I've said my peace now. Cheers.

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.