I'm running at 2560x1600 on a first-generation Dell 3007WFP (over two years old tech, with weak contrast and color gamut, so I will likely upgrade to the 3008WFP soon). I'm currently using dual 8800 Ultra, but I hardly ever enable SLI because nVidia's drivers for SLI in Windows Vista aren't very stable. I like to run nVidia's Cascades DX10 demo, but it can be pretty sluggish on my current system, depending on what textures I'm using. If this thing only performs a little over 30% better than an 8800 Ultra, then shame on nVidia. They shouldn't be releasing a 9800 anything unless it'll provide at least 50% more FPS. And is this really the 9800? Someone said it's just a couple 8800s slapped together. I want to play Crysis at 2560x1600 with all effects enabled and have it run smoothly. Do your job, nVidia!!! Okay, maybe I should just chill and wait until I see some actual benchmarks, but based on all the rumors, I don't know what nVidia is thinking.

The main problem with these is not lack of demand. It's lack of hardware support, both in terms of interface cables that can provide a decent refresh rate, and graphics cards powerful enough to handle that resolution. Also, try running a game in SLI mode or Crossfire at 3840x2400. I'll bet it will crash every five minutes because nVidia's and ATI's (AMD's) drivers aren't up to snuff. These monitors have been around for years starting with the IBM T221, but until the rest of the hardware catches up they're no good for everyday computer applications. Incidentally, you can find older versions of these on eBay for less than four thousand dollars from time to time. Who's going to pay $17,000 when you can get an equivalent panel for less than $4,000, unless you just have to have the 60Hz refresh, which would be more compelling if they could make that simple plug and play.

Well I have a 30" Dell 3007WFP with a native resolution of 2560x1600, and any lower, non-native resolutions look blurry on this thing. So if my graphics are going to be crisp I need to run at the native resolution. I also have an old 24" Sony GDM-FW900 widescreen CRT which handles non-native resolutions beautifully, and does a wonderful 2304x1440 widescreen, as well as 1920x1200 and 2048x1536. Text is not very crisp on the Sony running in high resolutions though, so I generally prefer my Dell, but I would love it if they could shrink the pixel pitch from its .25mm and do the same 2560x1600 in a smaller diagonal so that the individual pixels would be less noticeable. We may see monitors like that in another year or so once they start releasing hardware that supports the new DisplayPort interface.

At any rate, I think the new Radeon HD 2900 XT looks like a great value in terms of the performance you get for the price, but I'd much rather spend my money on a pair of GeForce 8800 GTX or 8800 Ultra so that I can get some decent framerates at my Dell's native resolution. Otherwise I know I'll regret not spending that extra cash when I sit down to a session of Oblivion, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Crysis or Hellgate: London.

If you were blind, but lived in a future world where you could buy a new pair of eyes, wouldn't you want the best eyes you could afford? A substantial number of my waking hours are spent staring at my 2560x1600 monitor, and a lot of that time is spent in 3D games. I'd like to have fluid framerates and immersive visuals. I'm unable to upgrade my CPU past the Athlon64 FX-57 that I bought with the computer because my CPU/motherboard uses an older socket type than today's CPUs, but I can replace my pair of GeForce 7800GTX 512s with something that will give me noticeably better performance (and is DirectX 10 compliant). And with my current setup some games just lag. I'd gladly spend $900 on a graphics card if it's the right card. I mean, it's my graphics card afterall. I wouldn't buy a cheap pair of eyes if I was blind. I want to be able to clearly see and interact with the world around me, real or virtual.