Report on a working next generation machine that offers something different. Three new ATI R600 graphics cards powering six monitors! I am sure this has been posted elsewhere but I cannot see it & thought it interesting. With three monitors it is a possible challenge to Matrox?http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/new...ows-triple-r600Chris

It certainly wont challenge Matrox in the pricing field! LOL... $1000.00 plus monitors? Whew!

Multiple monitors is very nice, 3 works great with FS9 but I find FSX is just too demanding still for more than one view.

Hi Chris- I'm running triple monitors with triple synchronized views (LFwd,Fwd,RFwd) on my 4 yr.old "Smithsonian" class AMD 1.8GHz 'puter. All it needs is triple GeForce Fx5200 video cards. Gives me a fully aligned 48"/180

The best solution so far, is the Triple to go (Digital) from Matrox.But I am still waiting for a 3 screen version with a widescreen 24" monitor in the center.Manny

Manny- As I understand TH2GO, you still have only the 90

I am disappointed that Matrox didn't offer 4800x1200 on their new digital box for 3 1600x1200 monitors.

With an Nvidia multi-card (non-SLI'd), multi-monitor setup, only the primary Vcard provides GPU processing. For instance, an X38/48 based 8800GTX/8800GTX/8800GTX 6 monitor setup will provide same functionality as a 8800GTX/7300/7300. All the secondary cards provide are 'monitor outlets." An encouraged perception that multiple, big $$$ Vcards will increase multi-monitor performance has been a marketing feast for Nvidia. Somehow I doubt it, but I'm wondering if ATI now has their card's GPUs working independently for multi-monitor setups. That would be a very Big Deal. Beware though. Until we know differently, we might want to assume that three 2900XYZs will not help multi-monitor performance for ATI any more than a fleet of 8800GTXs will help an Nvidia rig.

So if secondary nvidia cards are just "monitor outlets" does this meanA DX10 primary card will send DX10 quality graphics through a secondaryDX9 card?gb.

>I am disappointed that Matrox didn't offer 4800x1200 on their>new digital box for 3 1600x1200 monitors.Why would you want 4800 X 1200? A top of the line system has a tough time running 3840 X 1024 when using FSX. I have to push sliders to the left to get semi-smooth operation on three 19" lcd's.Steve

Sam- I read your comments with considerable interest as I've lately been analyzing performance on my triple monitor/triple vid card system. Here's what I've found. (Windowed mode)1. With only main monitor active- full screen ViewFwd runs @40-50 FPS. Avg.45FPS @ 1024x768 res, that's 35,389,000 pixels per second.2. With three monitors active- full screen ViewFwd,ViewFwdR,ViewFwdL,FPS is halved- about 22-23 FPS. With 3 monitors at same resolution, that works out to 51,904,512 pixels per second.All other settings remained the same.That means that my eyes/brain are receiving 50% more pixels per sec, as a result of merely adding vid cards! I have to conclude that the extra GPUs do indeed increase overall processing power- quite substantially. And in the process generate a wide image that equates well with normal human vision- ie a 180

4800 X 1200 is also outside the bandwidth of a dual link DVI connection (2560x1600)

The technology is beyond me, but I have evidence too! Consider the odd case where a 6600GT runs a single 17" at 10X7, then two 19s" at 12X10. Then adding a PCI card, finally a 42" at 19X10 And the two 19 (@12X10). I've experienced no FPS loss in any game (FarCry, Doom, FS9-10, etc), using any monitor . . . or combination of monitors. It seemed the Vcard was bottlenecked by its output device. When the output device needs more PPS (Pixels per second), the (single) Vcard just puts them put . . . at least in my case.