What is it about the videocard market that they constantly need to be on top of everything, despite the fact that very little people will actually buy this? I mean, this setup we tested. I live in the Netherlands and I think I'll be the only one for a while to have this setup. That's how small a number of people can afford this let alone are willing of buy this kind of gear as obviously... the Quad SLI cards alone will put you down 1100 EUR/USD and especially with DirectX 10 luring around the corner that decision of purchasing a solution like this is becoming even more complex then ever.

It is very simple though, these uber high-end gaming rigs are the ones that everybody wants to have yet can't afford, the drool factor. They draw all the attention and exactly this attention gives companies like NVIDIA more brand awareness. So on that level it's important to you guys and most definitely for NVIDIA.

And hey that's okay as testing Quad SLI most certainly is an indication of what to expect in the future... you didn't think about that one just yet did you? I'm not saying that Quad SLI is worth the money, contrary I doubt it as I would never put in this kind of money for extra performance in high AA modes. But I just can't deny that there is a very small segment of people out there that will consider it as a viable option for their PC. The progress that has been made by NVIDIA ever since the last May to July has been impressive to say the least. But you do need to game at these insane resolutions and high AA levels, if you intend to play with only 4 samples of AA and 16 levels AF at 1920x1200 or lower; then this solution obviously is not for you. In fact I'd recommend you to go for two 7900 512MB GTX's as they are clocked faster than the GX2's and thus will bring you a higher overall framerate with these more conservative/industry standard image quality settings. Only the highest in everything applies.

But in all fairness gaming at that XHD resolution of 2560x1600 is really something else. Let me show you something:

If 1024x768 is your standard resolution then your graphics card needs to fill 786k pixels. At 2560x1600 that's over 4 Mpixels per refresh (on average that is 4 MPixels x 60 frames per second)  and thus there is roughly five times more pixels to fill. So please try to understand the complexity of what we are dealing with.

Quad SLI is far from finished but support is coming, getting better and will definitely will be better in the months to come. At this time it's likely you'll run into compatibility issues here and there with a good amount of games. They either will revert back to the performance of a single GX2 or you can't apply the SLI-AA modes properly. It's a little bit of a mixed bag. Stability wise I was impressed though. NVIDIA delivered a PSU with this kit which likely did not survive a 6000 mile flight and I initially had a few lockups. After we replaced the PSU with an Enermax Galaxy 1000W we did not once have a single lockup. Pure stability.

At the other side the entire gameplay experience is very satisfactory though, if (yet only if) your games can play at these insane resolutions and if they support SLI-AA. That's where the fun is to be found. Now I can make a long and boring story about how expensive this rig is and that at the moment a good number of games will support it. None the less the progress that has been made is making me change my opinion. A few weeks ago if you asked me if Quad SLI was a viable option then I'd would have said flatout no. At this time however that opinion is changing with haste.

So I can only recommend Quad SLI if you have the money to do so and have the option to play around with a setup as described in this article, including the big-ass 30" Dell screen (which rocks by the way). Only then it can and will it be a very rewarding experience.

But now something a little different, my opinion as described above stands. These are the facts. I want to talk with you about my personal experience because something weird happened to me. What we did today is not just about Quad SLI gaming, yet also high-resolution gaming. We tested hundreds and hundreds of graphics cards in the past, the most beautiful gear, components and so it now rarely happens that I'm impressed.

What impressed me you ask ? Simple, gaming at a 2560x1600 resolution shifted my perspective as it is crazy how much fun it is to play behind that huge 30"screen. Gaming at that resolution in combo with Quad SLI is intense, you'll have the feeling you are completely in the actual game as your entire field of view is in front of you. You have to move you head a little up/down/right/left a little and it's just so weird. Don't get me wrong, I have two 1920x1200 Dell 24" screens on which I normally game and test, but they fade away when you are gaming with that 30" screen.

So what I'm trying to say here is that the overall gaming experience was boosted heaps. If you have all the factors right namely: Quad SLI/system components/monitor then your gaming experience will be lifted to an entirely new experience and trust me when I say that does not disappoint. I have been playing more games recently on this rig then I did the entire year and for me that's quite something. Never have I played Battlefield 2 so intense as on a 2560x1600 resolution, it's amazing and even a little addicting.

Therefore my last moment of Zen has to go like this: if you have Quad SLI up and running on a system as described in today's article... that's exactly where it'll be showing it's skills. As long as you are very aware of the limitations that come with it, Quad SLI gaming can be offer you a massively pleasing gameplay experience when you play at these "uber" resolutions.

With much interest I will be following the developments of Quad SLI.

Hilbert