PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE!!!!

[H]ard|OCP benchmarked the Radeon 9500 Pro (difference between 9500 and 9500 pro is half the rendering pipelines and half the peak pixel fill rate), and it was neck and neck with the Ti4600 on most things, until you added antialiasing and anisotropic filtering, in which case the Radeon tended to pull ahead some.

However, I decided to benchmark my system against their 3dmark2001 results with 4xAA and 8xAF, and I actually scored higher than the Radeon 9500 Pro!  With an AMD Athlon XP2200+, 1GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM, a GeForce4 Ti4400 (overclocked to match a 4600) and a 45GB 5400rpm ATA/66 hard drive, I got 6537 3dmarks, versus 6350 from the Radeon.  Interestingly enough, i got a lower score with no AA/AF...  11185 3dmarks, while the Radeon 9500 Pro got 12092 3dmarks.  Of course if you look at the system specs, the rest of my hardware is slower than theirs:
P4 2.53GHz versus XP 2200+ (@ 1.8GHz)
PC1066 RDRAM versus PC2100 DDR SDRAM (yes PC2100 < PC1066)
5400rpm ATA/66 HD versus 7200rpm ATA/133 HD

and online, a Ti4400 costs just about as much as a 9500 Pro, and you get better drivers with the Ti4400  

keep in mind, i'm not an nvidia fanboy... i just call it like i see it, and right now i see that
Radeon 9500 Pro < o/ced GF4Ti4400 < o/ced GF4Ti4600 < Radeon 9700 Pro