The reason NVIDIA sucks is not because of their video card, it is what they did after. They discredited 3Dmark2003 for being honest benchmark. 3Dmark2003 revealed NV3x performed miserably in DX9. NVIDIA called them a liar and purposely inflated their 3Dmark scores. Publicly, they vigorously promoted how FP32 is light years ahead of FP24, how their hardware is the one and only IEEE 754 complaint video card, how useless synthetically benchmarks like 3Dmark2003 are, because they do not represent real performances NV3X posses under REAL DX9 games. “You won't be able to experience the full power of our NV3x hardware until the DX9 games ship” Sadly, NV fans agreed them. Making all sorts of excuses for them, the most absurd of which is Microsoft and ATI scammed them by leaving key details out. I guess ATI got scammed by Microsoft and NVIDIA upon the release of DX7 and DX8 as well. So when 3Dmark scores are low, it is because ATI paid futuremark and 3Dmark2003 is a dishonest useless benchmark. When the scores match that of ATI's, it is the true performance of NV3x series. Double standards, anyone? Every DX9 or partial DX9 game shipped to date performed better on R3x0, sometimes by a close 50%, and yet the facts above doesn't strike you a little bit odd? Why is it 5950 could score 6500 marks just like 9800 XT, but I can play the game at 1024x768 with all details high and the 5950 could only manage at 800x600? The fact that 3Dmark2003 revealed that 2 years back?