That's my opinion, but today came the first review, and a few benchmarks. It's quite interesting that there are only marginal performance improvements in the lower resolutions, and things only start to pick up at the higher resolutions. Results seem to be quite processor restricted.

Anyway, here is the link:
http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/05/02/nvidia_goes_for_four_uk/

It might appeal to some, but I'm turned away by the price tag and the absolutely HUGE cards! It shows a picture of them on the first page of the review. Damn that thing is crazy, I literally would need to cut out my hard drive bays to use these. Luckily the 7950GX2's are coming soon - these are much shorter (22.5cm rather than 33.5cm)... though they draw 286W of power if you have 2 in SLI.

Maybe when we see higher FSB's on motherboards and four cores in processors we will see some much larger increases in performance?

OK, wait! Apparently, the new monster (the 7950GX2 - the much shorter board!) is going to sell for $600. This works out cheaper than the most expensive 7900GTX (XFX's 7900GTX XXX Edition), and gives you the performance boost at higher resolutions... So if high-res gaming is what you want, get 20% more performance for about 20% less [than 2 7900GTX's]...

Hopefully when developers start mutlithreading more on the graphics side; multiple graphics processors (more than 2) will really become necessary, or just much cooler!

I think that this 'quad' feature could become a standard feature on the 8 series? Maybe they will find a way to pop 2 GPU's on the same PCB, and using the same technique allow for 8 GPU's with up to 4GB memory?

Looking in to the future... will we need that much memory, when memory will be faster anyway? Think about things like GDDR4 which is set to work at 1.8GHz standard, and XDR, which is set to run even faster...