Percentages without underlying fps numbers are nice but the only real results we have seen so far is the Crysis 3 performance Nvidia gave us, with a GTX 680 getting about 37 fps and a Titan 48 fps. That's more like 35%

I agree with you here.  I've had Nvidia cards since the GTX 260 (with a radeon 6850 and 7750 in my htpc's on the side) and this is the first gen where AMD beats nvidia at every price point.

At 100 dollars 7750 VS GTX 650 isn't even close. Even 650 Ti trades blows with the 7750 while costing more than 7770. And it only get's worse from there.  So yeah, if buying a new card today, one should absolutely go with AMD unless they want a better 3D experience or want to use that upcoming Nvidia Shield handheld.

I don't agree with your other comment about tripple SLI being for rich or stupid people and only for penis bragging... For tripple screen setups you absolutely need tri SLI to enjoy all games at 60 fps. Not tomention people that to folding@home or the guys above that are mining bitcoins.

Ok I should clarify what I meant about that d!ck bragging comment.   I have nothing against people with SLI, or multiple powerful cards.  However this card is kinda like the i7-3970X.  Sure it IS the strongest, but not by that much, and the price increase to get there is crazy not worth it.   

If you have 2x670's or even a 690 in some circumstances, you are NOT an idiot.  However if you have 3xTitans...

P.S.  For multimonitor gaming, 7970's are the only option IMO.  Also I am not convinced Nvidia 3D is all that much better than Tridef.  I mean at least tridef works on ALL games and it doesn't require a 120 HZ monitor which almost always costs $400-$500.

I'd say that the 4GB versions of 680's and 670s are also a viable option. Even the 3 GB 660Ti in tri SLI could work for multi monitor setup.

And I've used Tridef and Nvidia 3D vision for many years now and 3D vision is better(but you pay for it). Both have some advantages... for example, Tridef is good if you don't mind playing around with settings and waiting for communuty to provide 3D game profiles. But if you want a controlled quality experience and don't mind paying for it, Nvidia 3D vision runs circles around Tridef. 

Speaking of Titan's, they have implemented some really cool features. Apparently it is able to overclock your monitor to it's maximum refresh rate and then make that refresh rate the VSYNC default. Also it turbo-boosts much higher depending on temperature of the card. The tech sites are not allowed to give benchmarks yet but it looks like Nvidia went all out here...

I am strictly looking at multi monitor benchmakrs here and in a few days when they are available, only thing that could justify the Titan is if Titan tri SLI gives 100+ fps in 5760x1080 on games like Crysis 3 and BF3 while tri 680 and 7970 can't even do 60... In that case, I'd say it's actually worth it. 

AMD drivers is something that follows them around as in one point they really did inferior drivers. However in the last 2 generations of cards, this really isn't the case. Their AMD catalyst UI is a little more confusing than Nvidia Control panel but once you get used to it, its just as good. I would say that the AMD catalyst offers more flexibility than Nvidia when it comes to multimonitor setups and arranging them how you'd like.

In terms of specs, at the time or release GTX 680 was beating the 7970 on 8 out of 10 games. However after various driver optimizations and the release of the revised 7970 Ghz edition, AMD is winning almost every new game benchmark. Even the regular 7970 is beating the 680 half the time while costing 100-150 less.

Also there is the case of multi GPU scaling where AMD is pretty much blowing Nvidia out of the water at very high game settings. 

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/12/04/gtx_680_vs_radeon_hd_7970_multidisplay_showdown/7#.USPXbaVJM1I

"Both AMD and NVIDIA have released new drivers very recently that make some tangible steps forward in gaming performance. How does it change the face of gaming for this Christmas? Simply put, AMD's new "Never Settle" Catalyst 12.11 drivers are excellent. As we experienced in our initial evaluation, these drivers have helped propel the AMD equivalent GPUs over that of NVIDIA’s. We were surprised how much faster CrossFireX really is compared to SLI in today's games in triple-display gaming at high resolutions. There is a distinct performance advantage for Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition CrossFireX compared to GTX 680 SLI. We still however "feel" there is also a distinct smoothness advantage with SLI that AMD has yet to capture. This is subjective call, but all [H]ardOCP editors agree on this."

Nvidia still does have some advantages for gamers. 3D vision is better than AMD's 3D solution. Adaptive VSYNC is cool. The whole Geforce experience auto game setup is something AMD doesn't have. The Nvidia Shield handheld also may bring some added value. Physix is still there, but no one really uses it. 

At this point Nvidia will need to think hard about what they do for their next gen of cards. The "added value" argument which they used to justify the higher price on Nvidia cards before is getting smaller and smaller. They will need to provide actual perfomance value or I honestly don't see myself going with their cards next gen. I don't see why anyone that wants the best product for the money would go with them unless they really bring it...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6760/nvidias-geforce-gtx-titan-part-1/2

Titan is $999

Never say "Never!"   ATI was kinda a joke until AMD bought them.  But ever since the HD 4000 series AMD has basically been destroying Nvidia in price performance more and more every year.  However the GTX 5xx series easily beat the HD 6xxx with the exception of the 6990.

My point is AMD has gotten better over time and Nvidia has kinda lost its game over that same period.

-Physx is a running joke amongst most enthusiasts. 

-AMD drivers give substantial increases every release while GTX ones are like a +3-5% sometimes.

-AMD's overclockability is legendary while Nvidia's is almost non-existant at this point.

In 2011 the GTX 580 was the obvious king and anyone who argues with that is a fanboy.  However now the 7970 GHz is the champion, and a 20-30% stronger card that is 250% more expensive doesn't change anything but braging rights.

P.S.    disolitude I pretty much agree with everything you said except for the 4GB 680 and 3GB 660Ti.  Those cards don't have the bandwidth to support that much RAM.  In fact benchmarks have shown their performance (Even in SLI) falls off a cliff after 2 GB.   Hell the 7970 GHz has the same problem after 4GB so it is just a fact that cards are built to handle the amount of RAM Nvidia/AMD mean for them to have.

Toms Hardware ran a pretty cool article showcasing tri GTX 660 Ti vs 2way 4GB 680 sli.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-680-geforce-gtx-660-ti-sli,3429.html

You're right about the memory bandwith being limited, especially for the 192 bit GTX 660 ti, but its still workable. Games like F1 on Ultra with everything max absolutely hammer the 660 Ti setup in 5760x1080, but that's probably because the 2 GB memory limit. Look at the single 2GB 680 take a similar performance dive compared to the 4 Gb versions.

I'm not saying that bandwith doesn't play a part in this but the performance loss is probably 20% bandwith limitation and 80% memory limit.

Most of the high end games use between 2-3GB VRAM maxed and if you absolutely need to max everything out, you will need 3GB of memory. 

So to conclude, as long as you don't mind lowering to 2X or 4X MSAA and 4XAF, the tri gtx 660 Ti sli setup works for now and the near forseeable future. But you absolutely need 3GB of VRAM if you don't want to see sudden performance dives...

Before I upgraded my monitors and graphics cards I used to game happily on a couple of Radeon 6950's unlocked into 6970's and overclocked at 5760x1080, which for 99% of games was more than enough, provided you didn't go spastic with the Anti-Aliasing... And those cards only had 2gb of ram, but they were terrific value back then, especially when unlocked. :)

However, 3x Geforce 660 Ti's would crack a hernia at max settings at 7680x1440 or 7680x1600, 4x/8x AA/AF in a game like Crysis 3, heck my 3x 7970's sometimes struggle.

Whoa whoa...lets not go crazy with expectations here. :)

Makes one wonder if the top end Radeon 9000 series cards or Geforce 800 series cards in tri SLI/crossfire will be able to power 4K display eyefinity. Let's say 3 Sharp PN-K321's.

They would need to push 24,883,200 pixels which is a 100% increase to the crazy resolutions above, so I guess it seems possible. Actually 3 Titans may even be able to do it and deliver 40-60 fps...