Mutt, you are missing the two really obvious points:
1. Image quality. The V5's rules, period. Only the Radeon can come close right now IMNSHO.
2. Price. The V5 is a great deal for the money. The ultra would have been comparable to the V5 6000 if it had every made it into production. Compare the performance on a per dollar basis, and the V5 is suddenly a better value. That's not saying the V5 doesn't have competitors in it's price range, it certainly does. For most folks the GeForce 2 MX is the best value right now, and compares very well with the V5 5500. It's the comparison I would focus on if I was buying right now.
The third, and not so obvious point, is how much speed and resolution is usable. For example, I have a toejamty 17" no-name monitor. It maxes at 1024x768 32 color at 75Hz. Anything at higher resolutions and framerates is a completely irrelevant to me. There are a LOT of folks in that situation in the market. The problem is to get the most I can within that limitation, and the solution is FSAA.
Now, since I am limited in resolution, I need to get the best quality I can within that resolution range. The V5 5500 with it's top quality 3D image and very good 2x FSAA just beats the pants off of everything I've seen. Now maybe an Ultra would do 2x2 FSAA at the resolution and speed I run, but the V5's 2x looks just as good as nVidia's hacked "2x2" FSAA. Also, when you get into FSAA, the V5 starts to catch up in speed pretty quick. This is Aces High I'm talking about here, but it applies pretty well to flying and driving sims in general. If your a Quake-head with a good monitor, buy a GeForce... no argument there.
There is only one FSAA test in that benchmark, and it's screwed up for me. The graphic is pretty much un-readable for me. Try again in 1024x768 32 bit color 2x FSAA and see what happens. The Ultra might still be faster, but it won't be by a lot. It definately won't be enough for me to pay 3 times as much money for the difference.
Tom's benchmarks especially are very Quake-biased. Example, he discounts 1024x768 32 Bit 2x FSAA as a viable resolution. That's what I run with my Athlon 700 in every game I play, including Q3 Team Arena. Now if you are a hard-core quake player, that might not be "fast enough" for you. I'm more interested in how good Aces High looks and stays playable. For me that resolution and FSAA setting is the best I can do, and for the money nothing beats the V5 5500 at rendering it.
I might choose the Ultra instead of the V5... if it was the same price. Even then it would be a close call with my monitor limitation. If I was making a purchasing decision now, I think I'd be comparing the other GeForce 2 cards, the Pro and the MX, to the V5. If you can, try to observer the two side by side running a game you play. I'd be concerned about ongoing support though, so it might be best to stick with nVidia if you haven't purchased yet.
Oh btw, I was just reading how the latest nVidia 6.50 drivers break FSAA for a lot of folks. It's kind of entertaining that my "last drivers I'll ever get" for the V5 are better and more stable than whatever nVidia's creation of the moment is. Search through these boards and see how many folks there are trying to figure out which driver version in combination with obscure settings will allow them to play the game on their nVidia cards. I wish they'd get their driver act together, it would save me a lot of time helping folks on this board!
------------------
Lephturn - Aces High Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com Check out
Lephturn's Aerodrome![This message has been edited by Lephturn (edited 02-08-2001).]
