At this point, we're going to be arguing semantics. My 'required' clause gets you here -- if I were to want it, I can gain the same amount of processing power and ability from what is on the market right now. It is not so groundbreaking that it is a must have for all video gamers who want to run their settings at max. It may not even be the most cost effective.

I have SLI'd 570s and can run bf3 on ultra with 8xMSPAA or w/e it is at 110fps. I am aware that 60 is 'fluid' and that 100 is an accepted cushion for smoothness while gaming.

I just checked, I can run 3d, and I was originally running 3 screens as well until I mended it. I've never done such silly things because the separations would annoy the F*CK out of me, but the idea is there.

I'll repeat that the only truly *groundbreaking* piece of this card is Nvidia****************** finally getting around to improving their architecture so that a single gpu can support more than two monitors. That is by far and away the best feature of this card. Because god dammit, AMD did it ages ago and I don't use AMD cards. F*CK!

I didn't know Intel made GeForce cards.

@airman, whoever does your website's interface design needs a hint: It's not 1998.

Dicking around aside, great review! :D

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu I dicked up.

On a design note, (website) the one part I agree with is the format of the review with a sort-of legend at the bottom with each section listed as well as the drop-down menu. I really like drop-down menus for reviews.

good review man