Originally Posted by Slytat
I have plenty of monitors, I just don't game on multiple monitors. I may well set something up for BlackShark but that's a future project.
As far as NEEDING multiple monitors to exploit the cards fully, well that's your opinion, and again, it sounds more like a justification but you are entitled to it.
We've agreed before that we have entirely too much GPU power and nothing to exploit it so talking about ATI's ability to use more monitors may be a selling point for you, but it isn't for me.
I'm not happy with ATi's offerings, you are.
The bottom line is that enthusiasts are the kings of overkill!
True,setups like these are overkill since they're well ahead of the curve in terms of software,no matter which side you pick,but as for the triple monitor issue,it's very much real,since i've been benchmarking my setup now for well over a month,and in many different games and benchmarks,and even in the highest and craziest settings,at the max resolutions that my single monitor supports(1920*1200),i simply can't make the cards slow down to the point where i'm fairly sure it's because i'm actually hitting their hardware limits.
I've ran benchmarks in Crysis at absolute max settings at 4X antialiasing and got the same result when benching with 8X antialiasing,using supersampled AA,not the lesser quality multisampling method.....The cards simply don't care,and they are running at stock clocks,imagine when i overclock them.
So in that scenario,and given than a 30"LCD isn't exactly cheap so i could raise the resolution even higher,there's the triple display option,which could extend resolutions to as high as 5760*1200 using 3 cheap 24" displays,and right off the bat,that's bout 65~70% harder than running on a single 30" LCD,when both are trying to sustain the same frame rate:
2560*1600 = 4.096 megapixels each frame.
5760*1200 = 6.912 megapixels each frame.
Yup,the cards will be definitely working harder in a pretty substancial way.