AMD Eyefinity Video Review.

Is it okay for you to be excite...? For me I like the idea and the ability, although I'd need to see thin or Zero bezel monitors brought to market. That's when it's really going to move from a novelty to mainstream and you're no going to really feel immersed in game without it.

What a PC... i like that "case" it look so cold..

Very good review, HardOCP are getting under my skin.

Hey Steve, you've had access to ($650 worth) of Nvidias 3D technology, how does this compare to that? Seems to me eyefinity is probably going to be a whole lot better supported simply because of the fact that 90% of games just use an ini or registry to control resolution (thus changing it to 5K * 2K isnt too hard), unlike Nvidias 3D technology... and @DareD; I've had a couple of scathing remarks from either brent or kyle about their so called "real-world gameplay" measuring, which I dont agree with at all, but they're the only site that I like the work ethic of: collectiong 30 secs worth of data (ahem anand) and calling that a fair base to draw conclusions from is woefully inadaquite testing IMHO. if you take a look at HardOCP's FPS real-time graphs (which is where the value is) you'll see they usually grab 3 or 4, or as much as 9 mins worth of data.

MrWizard6600 - I would agree that HardOCP data is harder to decifer and digest, but it offers a fair and balanced seat of the pants on real game play. Running the in-game benchmarks are a cake-walk sometimes, as cards can have the drivers optimize to achieve good performance there, while results within real gameplay may not translate into how the rest of that title comes across. The down side is their results don%u2019t correspond to other site B-M%u2019s so you really need decipher the settings and resolutions HardOCP runs to produce acceptable game play. While other say it didn%u2019t run good like how they ran it, and there done. HardOCP might actually just lower one in game setting and really uncorks the cards potential and they%u2019ll discuss if it does really deter from the total effect of being absorbed in the game.

Real-world gameplay measuring is the most relevant way to gauge how well that particular machine will perform in that game, as it does not confine itself to a specific run-through.

It's not the best way for comparing one card to another, sure, but it's the best way to gauge each individual card in and of itself. It's the equivalent of comparing an athlete's performance in a structured training/tryout environment versus their performance when it matters; one is synthetic and the other organic.

I consider [H] reviews to be the best analysis available.