I have 13900K and intel since 20 years + Nvidia 4090, no issue. I have triple 1440p, with this resolution the 4090 is almost perfect, but better for 4 K only (even if I need the 5090)
with triple 1440p I have 110-120fps with day with Longbeach and BTCC at start, with older cars I can have more, with rain it's a disaster....with night it's acceptable at start, 4090 is perfect for 4K, for triple 1440p I need the 5090 to have constant 120fps with any condition. With AMS2, I have +120fps with any condition, and with ACC, itt's perfect for 4K, triple 1440p is too much demanding. I play of course at full max, nothing else, I don't buy a 4090 to lower the graphics
Pixel count. Single 4k monitor 8,294,400 Triple 1080 monitors 6,220,800. Single screen 2,073,600 Triple 1440 monitors 11,059,200. Single screen 3,686,400 If running a single 4k monitor is a problem, running triple 1440 is going to be even worse.
Pixel count is nice and all... But we do not get the same performance with or without 'Multiview' on... (with same pixel count... to render) I don't remember the exact difference... but it was significant.
Never used a triple screen setup or set one up. Just showing how much pixel count increases by using triple screens. No matter what system is use or how it is set up it still has to render the pixels. I don't think a lot of people realise how much more powerful a system needs to be to run triple screens well and at high settings.
You may be right... people might underestimate triple screen requirements. And 'multiview' perf penatly on top... only add to your point.
