Before we dive into the actual results, we need to explain the criteria and ranking system we used to produce the finishing order.

1. Performance

No one likes power more than we do, it's only natural therefore that we placed the biggest amount of importance on the benchmark results we obtained. All of these cards are speedy, but there are important differences between them. Just like the Oakland Raider's Al Davis says, Speed Kills Baby.

2. Visual Quality

Definitely the theme of 1999, Visual Quality is really beginning to assert itself as a rival to raw performance in most buyers' minds. We've found that "visual quality" now encompasses not only the image being generated on screen, but also the level of detail being provided through high-end feature support like 32bit per pixel final color rendering, bump mapping and anisotropic filtering.

Cards that were able to support these types of visually advanced graphic features ranked higher than those that didn't provide support.

3. Price/Value

None of these high-end video wonders can be considered "cheap" but there's definitely a pecking order among them concerning price. While not nearly as important to us as performance, considering again that these cards are designed for the elite hard core gaming audience, we still appreciate a bargain as much as anybody. Cards that offer a strong price/performance ratio are noted within the text.

4. Features

This roundup brought a myriad of intangible features and benefits into play concerning each card's value level to our staff. From Matrox's aggressive Dual-Head multi-monitor display ability to the overclocking prowess of the Hercules Dynamite TNT2 Ultra, to the sharp TV-Out image of the Guillemot Maxi Gamer Xentor 32, features are quickly becoming a way that cards stand out from one another to buyers.

The cards that offered features which are usable in the real world (and therefore valuable) helped our staff distinguish from the "fluff" features obviously designed by marketing teams.