Originally Posted by shadow001
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.
Well, we play different games and at different resolutions so as much as you may be maxing out your cards, I'm not sure I'll be so lucky, but we will see soon enough.
I can assure you that my mainstay game can cripple 3 x 280 @ 2560 x 1920 and equally the 5970 at the same settings on a 4GHz i7 so that's why I stand by my earlier comments.
I don't really want to get into a game specific discussion here as it is totally off topic.