[Kamel]

i think a lot of you are missing a very vital point... at the time these big boys were up in the $400 range... you say "the ati series were better", but that doesn't mean if i get a $200 5900xt that's slower than the ati cards that it's a bad deal. basically what i'm trying to emphasize is that it's value for money. sure a dodge viper can't outrun a mclauren f1, but that dont mean the dodge viper is any less successful than the mlf1. actually, the viper has made more money than the mf1, because at $1M a pop, not many own a mclaurenf1.

that's the point i'm making. ati did not offer a competatively priced answer to the 5900xt... allbeit the other cards they had were better than the even more expensive nvidia cards, the 5900xt was still a _great_ value. that's why the 5900xt was a success and the faster 5950u was IMO a failure. not because ati has better cards. of course, it's all a matter of preception. sure you can say the 9600xt was competition, but the 9600xt was darn expensive when it came out, you'd be better off getting the 9700pro at that time.

of course, i didn't follow the timeline of the entire release and the prices the entire time of it, so i only have like a small fragment of that time in a freeze frame in my memory, so your opinion on the issue might differ greatly from mine; though they could both be accurate.