i was close 460 not 560 (shame it wasn't )nailed the single card 3D able .Good product if the price point is reasonable in comparison to other options.Guessing 379.99  (based of buying two 01G-P3-1367-TR 460 cards @ 179.99 each)

cheaper PCB ?

I think you are right about that! Once a new series comes out most people want the newest/latest.  I only use one monitor but even I'm tempted.

EVGA_JacobF

Unfortunately it was too late to remove it from the PCB before it went to production.

Hmm okay although It would interest me if the engineering samples could work in Quad SLI mode since they do have them SLI connectors, could you find this out?
 
It might show  how good GF104 would scale in Quad SLI, the 3dfx Voodoo5 6000 was a Quad SLI on a single PCB and Icna tell you it worked wonderfully, here's my gallery of my results when I had this beast:
Click to enter

 
I just wonder what would happen if you'd palce a pair of them GTX 460 2WIN Engieering Samples iin Quad SLI, it should work, in theory that is, just try it out I'd say.
 

hmmm, kind of a let down. I was hoping for GT560 or 570 chips and also 1.5- 2 gigs of ram per gpu.

*GASP* Cel ordered his new GPU on Weds! QUICK, ANNOUNCE THE 590 AND 460x2 GOGOGOGOGO!
 

Nice looking card, great idea. Must admit that I am kind of disappointed as I was hoping for 2 x 560 and not 2 x 460.... I thought this gpu was eol in favor of the 560..... maybe it's me but it does not make sense to bring out a new product based on eol gpu....
 
Guess there's life in the GTX 460 yet......
 
Don't suppose there is talk of a 560 version then?

No Quad support? That's the only reason why I was interested in this. Aw well...

I'm feeling pretty conflicted about this card.
 
On the one hand, I think it's really cool and would really want to pick one up.
 
On the other hand, I just cannot see what group of audience this card is made for.
 
First is the choice of 2x 460 instead of 2x 560 GPUs. Why cripple the card from the start, and not take full advantage of GF104/114? I understand that providing GTX 580 like performance for less money is great (assuming this thing is less than $500), but at the same time the GTX 580 is a single GPU and this is not. So inherently the GTX 580 will be preferred by many gamers. I can see this card as a "poor man's GTX 580", but so is GTX 460 SLI, which might end up being cheaper than this card. Without the ability to quad-SLI, I don't see what will set this card apart from a pair of regular GTX 460s.
 
Next, about the ports on the back. 3x DVI-D support screams multi-monitor/Nvidia 3D. Indeed many people who buy this card will probably use it for multi-monitor gaming. But the 2Win only comes with 1gb of memory/GPU, which has already been shown as a bottleneck at resolutions from 2560x1600 and up. Why limit the card at its intended function by not giving it enough RAM? So again, a pair of GTX 460 2gb cards will provide better performance, and probably cost the same or less.
 
So I really don't see where this card is supposed to fit on the market.
At $500, consumers have GTX 580, GTX 560 SLI, and 6950 XFire. All of these solutions provide more performance than the GTX 460 2Win, but are also more expensive. 
 
At $400~, the 2Win is really competing with GTX 460 SLI and 6870 XFire. But the problem with that is the SLI/Xfire solutions will probably provide better performance, and end up being cheaper. A pair of GTX 460s are around $320-$350 now, and a pair of 6870s are around $360. So again the 2Win cannot compete in either performance or price.
 
It's only at $350 or below I can see a point for the GTX 460 2Win, in terms of performance/dollar anyways. If EVGA had added another 2gb of RAM and made this a 4gb card, then I can potentially see this card being good for surround setups and finding a niche there. But at its current configuration and (assumed) price of $400~, I can only see people buying it for mass folding farms.

I had interest in this till they said no SLI, why was there an SLI connector on the PCB during production? Why not make use of the SLI connector?

donta1979
As for the sli connector heard card was rushed out and it was already included.

That doesn't explain why they would have a SLI finger on a PCB that was never going to use it... these arn't everyday PCB's are they? I assume they would have known from the start that there was no need to put a SLI connector on the PCB unless they were going to attempt it and later failed...

Bowenac

donta1979
As for the sli connector heard card was rushed out and it was already included.

That doesn't explain why they would have a SLI finger on a PCB that was never going to use it... these arn't everyday PCB's are they? I assume they would have known from the start that there was no need to put a SLI connector on the PCB unless they were going to attempt it and later failed...

This card is intended to provide nVidia 3D Vision Surround with a single cost effective card. EVGA has achieved it's goal, well if they price it correctly. I don't think the idea of this card was to ever have it combined in SLi with another card. Defeats the whole purpose of making this card.
 
Then again, maybe nVidia said no go to EVGA on allowing it to SLi. Maybe this is the same pcb the 590 will use and it saved money to use it.
 

it comes down to price....they know it ...so they are fishing....i personally believe this card has a niche....i hope it is a sign of things to come from EVGA...

@ jacob
 
if i were you i would put a sli bridge in the accessories pic......and then watch these guys go nuts......pretty big deal being made over sli being on the pcb......knit picken for sure...

EVGA_JacobF

Bowenac

donta1979
As for the sli connector heard card was rushed out and it was already included.

That doesn't explain why they would have a SLI finger on a PCB that was never going to use it... these arn't everyday PCB's are they? I assume they would have known from the start that there was no need to put a SLI connector on the PCB unless they were going to attempt it and later failed...

The layout, hardware components, etc, need to be done way in advance of the software.

Maybe someday we can get Quad to work, just right now it is not supported.

 
Don't really understand what you mean... so you got a PCB with a SLI connector on it in advance of knowing it wouldn't actually work...
 
And the hardware in advance to the software is only true to a point. Usually software is used to determine design the circuit, program the chips being used, etc...
 
And if what you said is your design plan, it was obviously in your plan to add the connector... so it should be no problem for you guys to "continue" to write the software to get this to work in quad.