In general, 2D performance was very close, but the ATI cards had the advantage of being able to run resolutions as high as 1152x870, millions colors. In fact they were just as fast as the much more expensive Nexus GA at that resolution. The fact the cards run at a higher clock speed (using 10ns SGRAM vs. dual ported 60ns WRAM) is the reason. At higher resolutions the dual ported WRAM (and faster RamDac) may prove to be an advantage for the Nexus, but for most users the several hundred dollar savings make the lower cost 3D/VR cards a much better buy. Most non-professional users don't run higher than 1152x870 graphics modes.

MacBench 4.0 Tests:
I ran tests of 2D performance at 1024x768, thousands colors mode at 75 Hz refresh rate. The MacBench 4.0 scores for the standard Graphics and Low Res. Publishing tests are shown below, with the Nexus GA score shown for reference.

Thousands Colors Mode - 1024x768

As you can see, 2D MacBench scores were very close, and all 3 of these cards really look like a great value for the money. I rated 2D performance of each card as follows

• ATI Xclaim 3D: 8.5
• ATI Xclaim VR: 8.5
• MacTell Vision 3D: 7.5

I have the ATI cards a 1 point bonus for having the ability to run 1152x870, millions colors at good speed (equal to the Nexus GA), which was not possible with the Vision 3D.