Excuse me, But the problems with the Nv30 have nothing to do with Drivers or PCB Design.
Why is a Graphics processors memory bus, AA, AF, Processing power etc.. not all considered?
You state that the problems have nothing to do with drivers or PCB design without anything to back your assertions. First the obvious point, the FX boards that have been previewed lack a 256bit memory bus and hence have a sizeable bandwith deficit. Are you trying to imply that that somehow ~doubling the bandwith on the FX would have no impact on performance? You don't think nVidia can do anything to optimize drivers or change the quality of AF? To date pretty much every comparison of AF quality has focused on the LOD bias, something that is extremely simplistic to change via drivers, as can adjustments be made to adaptive filtering techniques.
1. Nv30 claims 32 bit percision, but has to run everything at 16
According to whom exactly?
Which is part of the case against it.
3. Nv30 has more than one Known Hardware bug
Heard that about the original GF3 concerning 3D textures from nVidia themselves even, and they were liars.
4. Nv30 At its base Core speed of 400mhz that it was taped out at does not outperform the R300.
In what? I can show you benches where it does, even the R9700 Pro. It is not absolute by any means.
5. Nv30 was not commercially available in december. No board partners had working processors until this year. (that they had purchased)
Industry analysts who talk to the people who know directly at the OEMs said they had them, you say they didn't. Who would you expect rational people to believe? Make the argument about unrealisticly low amounts if you so choose, this award was about unveiling, not about launching.
I dont see how you can count paper specs that dont actually work in the real world as a victory. It makes no sense.
You have a GeForce FX, have written an extensive amount of DX9 and OpenGL applications to come to that conclusion is the only thing I can assume. Objectivity would be non existant if it were anything but that.
guess what, the Nv30 is not a CPU, its a VPU and there are many areas that come together to make up a VPU. You simply do not blow 10 areas off and give a company an award based on one single thing.
The award is for exactly the core chip and not the platform. They simply do blow off all the other areas and give an award based on exactly what the award says it is based off of. If you don't like the award criteria, then take issue with it, not who is given it.
Especially when it is clear that the Nv30 simply did not see the light of day in 2002. Anyone saying otherwise is not telling the truth. Sending a board or two (that cost nothing to the recipient) for testing does not count as a Commercial product.
Commercial availability on an engineering basis is quite different then commercial availability on a consumer basis. What do you think the team of hardware engineers for the NV30 have been doing for the last couple of months? Do you think they are still working on the completed chip?
IMO, there is not the least justification for this award taken as a whole. Not when ATI produced, Shiped, and Deliverd a near perfectly performing DX9 classed card 6 motnhs ago. That actually delivers peak performance even under full FP24, and its listed shader capabilities.
Hell, why dont we just write a software Supergraphics 19,000 emmulator that has 1,000,0000 instructions but takes a whole year to process. Whats the difference.
Actually, the justification for it is very obvious, would you have a problem with it if the R300 won? Then what you should be focusing on is why you think the R300 is superior in the context of the particular award, not what you think is better based on your particular interests in a board. What you have is an architecture that is more efficient vs one that has more flexibility(boiling it down to its core). Performance wise on a chip level I would say the two are overall quite comparable(excluding external factors) based on what we have seen so far. The R300 has a superior AA implementation going for it while the NV30 is likely to be better at non real time 3D rendering.
You want to know which is the superior consumer level product right now then that is obvious(I just orderd a R9500Pro for myself, can PM you the receipt if you question it). That doesn't mean that looking at particular aspects of the two cores against each other will always yield close to the same results.
but thats not the point here so I will shadddyup right now 
