stectacular :

Chris -- on behalf of triple head gamers thank you so much for the multi-monitor testing! The GTX 590 and AMD 6990 comparison was great.

Very welcome! Several of the additions to this story were direct responses to things readers asked for in the 6990 piece! If you want to see more of that, join in on Twitter, and when I tease the story a couple of weeks ahead of time and ask for requests, let me know what you'd like to see =)

My comment to the review and Tom's Hardware reviewer reply:

"Join in on Twitter"...

No, thankyouverymuch.

Cool that somewhere other than here and HardOCP is looking at multi-mon. I find it highly amusing when sites review something like a 6990 and test it at 1680x1050, then wonder why it's barely faster than a card half the price... :roll:

I hardly see any 1680x1050 panels advertised any more. They're all either 1366x768 or 1920x1080, with the odd 1600x900... this appears to be primarily because the adverts have everyone obsessed with the idea that 16:9 is better.

The point I was trying to make was more that the high-end cards now only really stretch their legs when they're pushed - and that means high resolutions. ;) In many cases, you don't start seeing the serious bottlenecks on the high-end cards until you start pushing upwards of seven million pixels; even 2560x1600 can't show a bottleneck up the way 6064x1200 can.

Anyone that buys one of the top-end cards and runs a single 1680x1050 monitor isn't really bothered about the details; they obviously want the fastest - whether for bragging rights or whatever - and don't care that there would be better solutions which cost a lot less to implement. :)