They are the same displays as the $1000 Apple thunderbolt displays with half the response time (Apple's is 12ms). I have never had an issue with any response time below 12ms so if it bothers you it is your decision. However the contrast ratio and color stuff is incontestable (Look up these korean monitor reviews for yourself).
As for the VG23AH, it IS one of the best if not the best. I have actually read multiple reviews where people took measurements of contrast ratio's, color accuracy, and amount of colors it displays. It scores crazy high.
It can also do 72Hz and while that isn't 120 Hz... WHO CARES? 120Hz means you have to turn down setting A LOT to take advantage of it (Maybe not now, but you will have to eventually). Sure my 7970 could do 120Hz on Ultra in most games but not BF3 or FC3. In 1-1.5 years that 690 won't either.
About the 7990 vs. 690. The 670 benches ~30-40% slower than my overclocked 7970. A 690 is about as strong as 670 SLI so imagine how much faster a 7970 GHz double card will be (40-50%). Also the 7990's extra RAM and bus that can actually utilize it will really help (I already have used over 2GB in FC3). On top of this the 7990 is $208 cheaper! Yes it uses a lot of power but any 800w 80+ PSU will do fine (Please don't make me do the math for you). Overall I recommend getting 2 or 3x7970 GHz Vapor-x cards. But if you must get a double card, get the one that is cheaper AND stronger.
P.S. You really should just wait 1 month until AMD launches the 8970. It will be very strong and it is right around the corner.
Please don't bring up Apple, that is just embarrassing.
Really... recommending 72Hz on a 5k budget, I am speechless right now. Also you're completely wrong, and the whole point of getting 120hz monitors is so that you can fully utilize it, which means SLI'ing, something he can easily afford.
If he's SLI'ing the 7990 he's going to need at least 1300W, maybe even a 1500W to be safe. I haven't done the math yet but under full load they can produce over 1150 watts by themselves, which is insane. Not very good for the environment or your wallet.
Again different cards perform better than others in different games, in his case the 690 would be the best bet for the games he will be playing.
Also yes lol I am kind of a Nvidia fanboy, although I'm impressed with AMD's graphics cards as of recent. In the coming years I might even purchase one, we will see how Nvidia counters them.
The benchmarks compare a 690 to 670's in SLI and the 690 is better than the 670's every time.
Well he doesn't need dual 690s to play WoW, but since he's playing it using three monitors in 3D he will.
Yeah three 3-D monitors will require an incredibly powerful setup to pull that off yeah.
It's not wasting money, it's the fastest mechanical hard drive you can get. 7200RPM drives are already too slow for loading certain games so it wouldn't hurt to upgrade. Also a 480+ gb SSD is totally worth it if you can afford it. I would rather get two 480gb ssds than an ssd and a mechanical hard drive.
Yeah but that's not the place I would spend money on a build. When you have a fast SSD as your primary the speed of your second, third, fourth, fifth hard drives becomes a moot point. It doesn't really matter if it's 7200 RPM or 10K RPM. On my work PC I run everything off a central file server and I can open files as fast as if they were on the primary drive. The thing you have to remember with SSDs is that the read - write times are far more limited and can slow down when you load them over 80% capacity (a big problem with Sandforce based drives and some Marvell and Indilinx drives even have this problem). Mechanical hard drives can take a lot more punishment than SSDs can.
My 2 cents here - If we consider incompressible data, the write speeds will be the worst case, but real world data(compressible + inccompressible) on SandForce drives have write speeds that are much higher than any other drive out there