Ok, look, I see this phrase thrown around a lot. There is definitely an impression that AMD has great hardware but awful drivers compared to those from Nvidia and it is vocalized often. Even still today when much improvement has been made compared to the Catalysts of old. Moreover, I rarely see the statement that AMD driver suck challenged. So, for those of us who aren't just green team zealots (I really hate the "F word"), and especially those of us like myself who have owned a few different ATI and NV cards recently, I would really like to know what you think and what has been your experience. As for myself, for as much I love PC gaming I'm not even close to well-informed about game development/programming and don't know a Z-Buffer from a tessellation engine. But what I do know is that I like great looking (and running) games which means high AA and AF settings. And in my experience, while the NV drivers look better in a few select TWIMTBP titles (and this isn't true across the board) in most of the games I play (everything from BC2 to The Witcher to Unreal 1 to Batman:AA to BF2) the AMD drivers have superior image quality and certainly no worse performance (tho of course these aren't all apple-to-apples comparisons). I do like NV's interface better and also the AA options are more varied and thus robust (can specifically choose 2x to 8x SSAA, for example) but other than that I am kind of at a loss to understand all the general disdain for Catalyst.