Originally Posted by Chaney
I don't get the charts,
Gtx 590 sli 5970*1080
Then gtx 590 5970*1080
Then another just gtx 590 (and this one is wayyy above the others in the chart, and the sli gets lower fps then the others... I'm confused is the chart labeled wrong?.......
I've noticed a repeating oc3d charting anomaly going way back to when the amd 6xxx series was launched. It'd be something only the in-house reviewers can look at really. Something being lower fps when you decrease the demand - something to that effect. But hey, I'm sure oced will review their reviews over time.
Mentioned in the review tho, you do get some crazy unexpected results sometimes, and it can be down to drivers/coding of the games. (in my opinion, I've been begging reviewers, not just on here, to look at the way they deploy windows cos it has things in it that will hamper performance on seemingly random occasions. you see it when you bench rigs.)
Anywho, over the 2 tripple screen reviews, both stables are pumping out fps that game-coders can't keep up with! It's going to leave pc-gamers demanding more quality textures, more filtering, higher resolutions and detail and better programing on a whole.
Apart from the prices, which I've always stood by the reasoning that if you can afford 3x quality monitors and 1 or 2 of these cards from either stable - £50/£100 means very little to you, your girlfriend still isn't going to speak to you for a month whichever you get. Pricing isn't that important at this end of the market - imo. You don't pose the question 6850 or 6990 ? You're in one market or the other. Imo anyway.
What it all boils down to for me, is that shelling out onzes of cash on setups including these things, both camps cover the playable-fps, the only thing that remains is the in-game quality, and to be fair AMD are on a loser from the get-go. Lower quality samples and no PhysX just as a starter. Spend big bucks and settle for less quality ? Why would you ?
Like to know how long it takes to get used to using 3 screens for gaming tho