Graphic performance is excellent if you don't insist on say using Nvidia hardware with the open source Nouveau drivers everyone knows sucks. Open source AMD and closed source Nvidia both provide good performance.
Going with just US figures the average spent on a computer in 2020 is 632 usd total. A high end card on the other hand is $400 to $800 each. a 2000-3000 pc with 800-1600 in graphics hardware is probably somewhat up there in the 99th percentile of configurations its pretty niche even so I cannot imagine any even technical challenges whatsoever with all the monitors hooked to the same GPU whereas a high end card ought to support 3 monitors.
So now are we talking about a 2000-3000 dollar pc with 2 dedicated GPUS with 4+ monitors?
Brief research seems to suggest this is challenging. Improving it would also seem not to benefit many users. Even talking merely about windows gamers only 1% used crossfire or sli.
There is even a plausible solution for people who want lots of displays so long as they are ok with a single gpu.
Although supporting 2 to 3 monitors is incredibly common there are actually cards which support 4-6.
I give you a variety of points and all I get back is a single flip quip. This is a disappointing rejoinder.
You CAN have a high end desktop. You can even have 3-6 monitors if it makes you happy. The only thing you cannot do is plug your monitors into the outputs of both GPUs. You must purchase GPUs wherein a single GPU has sufficient outputs and let the secondary GPU serve to aid in your favorite GPU compute or game playing adventure.
Is it possible to have two cards and have the second card do computations for the first one to render? I would have thought the time it took to move the data would make that hard.
Generally one actually runs games on one monitor in the first place so this is the only way it even could work. Work can be divided up by frame for example.
Crossfire and SLI rely on a high speed interconnect and game specific support.
