I don't thnk there is a large enough market for them to do that, or it would have been done in the first place. I think EyeFinity occured because they were looking at new ways to use that third active port DP allowed, not to accomodate people who already had 3 DVI displays. It came about with different reasoning than how most of us arrived at triple-head. This is also why there is a bit of friction here, because both this community and EyeFinity do triple-head, but came about in different ways. For 99% of the population, our concerns are largely irrelevant to the 5000-series line. We do bring some new perspective to the table that AMD is listening though with at least 2 people here. Many things we are seasoned veterans at AMD is only now just having to troubleshoot. That is why I'm glad they are here listening. I would hope our perspective is useful in prioritizing EyeFinity feature implementation.
Very perceptive and nearly 100% correct.
It isn't as if we completely dissed those who happen to own three DIV monitors. We did try (and are still trying) to make the 3rd DVI less painful. But we also realized that the market of folks who don't have three monitors is (almost infinitely) larger than those who do. For those folks, the purchase of a third or even a second and third monitor carried no legacy considerations. We also very carefully and thoroughly examined the economics and usage cases. Going down the path of more than two DVI's with native support was
too expensive throughout the ecosystem than going down the path of favoring DP (not to mention DVI has resolutions limits that I would not accept).
If native support for more than two DVIs had been a requirement, I can tell you authoritatively EF would never have happened. What a lost oportunity that would have been!