LOL Respect Deeko and co, I'm glad you don't take things too seriously, nice to see.
Don't go thinking I'm an nVidia fanboy, I look at all PC hw froma neutral standpoint. I just think the V5 wasn't all that great when released, esp considering its price. GTS along with all GF2 cards are notorious for poorer than average '2D' image quality, but I doubt spankyOO7 has a 19" monitor (or even a decent relatively new display) since he only has a budget of around $35 for gfx cards. I think the GTS would be better due to it being 125% - 226% the speed of the V5, even the V5's better AA can't redress the imbalance. I used a 3dfx Banshee recently when I sold my GF2 card at the launch of the GF4 as I awaited a GF4TI4200 release, during that time WinXP drivers were very poor, admittedly the Banshee performs far worse than the V5 though. My cousin also used a V3 and has ditched it when switching to WinXP due to poor drivers. Even with stable and efficient drivers the GTS would still be best IMHO, but the proof is in the pudding, depending upon what games are played with it the V5 is still capable of running reasonably well, lets face it the GTS technology is a bvit old now too. For anybody with only modest gaming interests there is little point aiming much higher. It is a close call between V5 and GTS, but I think it is clear the GTS is the better card.
As for Rand, I've seen him give some quality posts, but I've also seen him spout out unfounded and bizarre comments and opinions too, some of which have quickly and easily been proven false. In any case, there is little to choose between GTS and V5, most people would be much better served with a GF3TI200, Rad8500LE/9000 for $90, or Rad7500, GF4MX for a little less.