Curious what do you have to say about this --> $2,000 GTX690 SLI setup is only 5 fps faster on average and has lower minimum framerates than an $860 HD7970 GE CF setup using triple monitors. The guys who got 7970s and bitcoin mined got them free too. So it's like $2k vs. $0.
Could they have been CPU limited? i could say soooo much, lets me see.............
I would have to say that there are a few games that bring down the average big time, take those out and you could have a very different outcome. What i am saying from game to games it varies. The 2x 690 wins most of the time but there are a couple of major losses that bring down the average. I also dont like the way they average the fps in a total instead of averaging each individual game win/loss percentage and tallying them up for a final average.
Then i would like to bring up the bandwidth limitations of the gk104. If there was ever a time to really bring out those limitations, it would be in quad SLI with triple monitor resolutions. I also would like to say anyone who buys 2x 690s is pretty crazy. But these kinda people are buying in a way most value oriented people do not. They do not care about performance per dollar at all. To me, the 2x 7970 ghz system would save you a lot of cash and give close to the 690 2x performance in the triple monitor resolutions. But i care about my dollars i am spending.
Its not the same story when the resolution goes down. You could say, "someone who buys 2000$ worth of GPUs surely would surely buy three monitors" but then i would say "i am not sure rationality is a factor in these kind of people's decisions"
Anyway, i could go on for days rambling. A lot can be said about those results. I think most of the people here arent planning 2x 690s quad sli anyway.