<<
here's a clip from the Wildcat specs "Integrated 250 MHz RAMDAC" can you say UGLY 2D!? >>
Since when has the RAMDAC ever had much to do with 2D visual quality?
The RAMDAC has it's largest influence in attainable resolution and refresh rates, and a rather minimal impact on actualy 2D visual quality.
The old Matrox G200 had a 250MHz RAMDAC in most of it's variants, and it still manages to match (not beat) any ATI/nVidia board in terms of 2D visual quality. Indeed, it's only beaten by a couple 3dfx models, and Matrox's newer cards... all with it's meager 250MHz RAMDAC.
<< got a link to Counter-Strike benchmarks on this bad boy? >>
It's a relatively slow gaming card, in terms of gaming performance it is typically 10-15% below that of the nVidia GeForce2 MX.... though much of that is due to the fact that the drivers are most definitely not at all tuned towards gaming performance as in terms of theoretical capabilities it should be able to outperform the GF2 MX400 by a small amount.
That's in the case of OpenGL applications, as it's incompatible with the overwhelming majority of DirectX based games.
Remember the Wildcat II 4210 was never designed with gaming in mind, and indeed, it's a relatively poor gaming card as it's hardware capabilities are vastly inferior to that of even a meager GF2 GTS in the aspects that games typically stress the most.
FWIW, the WildCat II 4210 has recently been superseded by the WildCat III line which has been released though it's yet to actually hit the market.
In some ways the WildCat II 5XXX is superior to the 4210 at least in terms of complex shading and lighting performance, though the 4210 still proves faster in wireframe performance and most CAD apps.
The only areas wherein I would classify the WildCat II 4210 as being 'the best' is in light structural design, light texture shading, and wire-frame performance. It's debatabley 'the best' in terms of internal precision rendering, though personally I'd tend to give the FireGL4 the edge there.