sheesh, three gtx295 cards? I'm not too surprised they don't see any performance improvement with that beast. I wonder if it'd make a difference for a more limited card, like a gtx260 or an even cheaper card. If you could triple up some $80 cards and get $300+ worth of performance... that'd be freakin' awesome. I don't even know if $80 cards come with SLI bridges.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews ... lus/13.htm

These results speak the same thing. the x16x8x8 seems to outperform the triple x16 by a small margin. Notice that in this chart the Eclipse Plus (triplex16) loses to the Eclipse (x16x8x8) solution.

fail. Though someone is bound to buy it anyway.

Ive seen benchmarks on quad CrossfireX (notice the X means more than 2) 4850. But other than that i do not know.

EDIT: That would be 4850X2 + 4850X2 or 4850X2 + 4850 for Triple card solution. I think the cards below that just work in a two card solution. Some dont require a "bridge" but work straight through the motherboard.

EDIT2: I was mistaken, it means 4 independent 4850s. Now thats something.
http://images.tweaktown.com/imagebank/485cfz_07l.JPG

that guy might have been cool if he wasn't drinking something with the word "dick" in the title.

I could see the utility of 4 way sli/crossfire if you were using gpgpu functionality, but for games? Seems kinda silly. I hope gpgpu gets more generally built, though. Imagine a web browser using gpgpu to accelerate javascript performance. That would rock.

Anyway from all the forums and reviews ive been reading the 3 card solution is seriously questionable from the performance gain point of view and 4 card solutions seems to outright suck returning 1fps in some games. The point of this topic was just to see if theres any point in going for the triple x16 solution if someone would consider a triple card solution.