ATI's Rage Fury was actualy proven to be the better bargain with a superior image quality compared to most cards. I don't know where you got that the G200 offers a better image... I've seen both and the Rage looks a bit better (comparing colors and vibrancy...).
Preformance may be the differnce between them.
About the bad driver support for the Rage, that's purely false. Infact, the driver support was so terrible at the begining that it sprung a huge available driver base from people who supported the card - from ATI itself to independent installments from Rage users.
Oh, and also about the stable drivers - my Rage locks up about 1.5% of the time... usualy due to overusage or human error; don't believe everything you hear
[This message has been edited by Gigahert (edited 06-23-2000).]
i thought the ATI drivers got better since the arrival of the RAGE128pro and MAXX.
Notorious AGD: as a dedicated matrox fan i should bitch at you for saying that the opengl sucks. but since i'm in a good mood, i'll just tell you. Matrox made a full opengl ICD since the 5.23 drivers and then a turbogl driver with 5.50 driver, which pushed the G400 past TNT2 (@ same clock) in the opengl programs it supported.
the driver that were used in the first few benckmarks of the G400 were the old 4.xx which didn't reflect a good picture of the true performance of G400.
[This message has been edited by drzaius (edited 06-23-2000).]