Reddit mentions of HIS HMDPSDVIEYE Mini-DisplayPort to DVI Adapter AMD Eyefinity-ready (Retail) Video Card

I was in the same situation only with DVI instead of HDMI and went through two adapters before I found the right one. Here is the one I got (and works perfectly) http://amzn.com/B004RFGK30

Let me see f I can find an HDMI version...

edit: Here ya go. http://amzn.com/B00DOZHL82 That adapter will let you plug in an ordinary HDMI cable to it.

Just as Streichholzschachtel said you would need active DisplayPort adapter.

Just a few hours ago, I replied the following on a similar thread, which could help you pick adapter if you decides to get one:

A while back, on a multi-monitor setup, I've used this HIS Mini-DisplayPort to DVI Adapter AMD Eyefinity-ready and it worked flawlessly right out of the box(at first i tried this Accell B087B-006B UltraAV Mini DisplayPort to DVI-D Single-Link Active Adapter ATI Certified, which did not work, even though it was ATI certified).

This really sucks... So basically I can't have 120 hz on my monitor while having two monitors even if I buy this one?

http://www.amazon.com/HIS-HMDPSDVIEYE-Mini-DisplayPort-Adapter-Eyefinity-ready/dp/B004RFGK30/

I had this same issue with my 6870. The first thing I always try when I have monitor issues, or switch video cards, is a hard reset. Turn off power at PSU, hold PC power button down for 30-45 seconds. Turn on PSU power, turn on PC.

I'm not running eyefinity either, and using this adapter..http://www.amazon.com/HIS-HMDPSDVIEYE-Mini-DisplayPort-Adapter-Eyefinity-ready/dp/tech-data/B004RFGK30/ref=de_a_smtd

That square means you will need an active adapter. You were going to need one regardless though, because your card only had 1 hdmi, 1 dvi and 2 mini displayports. You will need to use one of those mini displayports.

I bought this adapter and have been pleased with it. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004RFGK30/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_Dc5bub12SZGSK

I have 3x ASUS VE248s, they cost me $200 a piece. 24" each, 1080P, and the picture quality is excellent. They also look beautiful. LED-backlit, no ghosting, etc. I think they even have built-in speakers, but I don't use them. I'd very, very highly recommend these.

By the way, you will need 2x ACTIVE DVI to Mini DisplayPort adapters. The "ACTIVE" is emphasized because plain passive adapters will not work. For example, the white Apple DVI to Mini DisplayPort adapter is passive, and so is practically every other adapter that does not explicitly say "Active" in the description. Better yet, if the description includes "Eyefinity," then you know it will be compatible, e.g. "EYEFINITY Mini DisplayPort to Single Link-DVI adapter."

This goes for monitor brand/model you buy; one will be connected with DVI, and the other two with the active mini displayport adapters. Here is an example of an "active" adapter you can buy:

http://www.amazon.com/HIS-HMDPSDVIEYE-Mini-DisplayPort-Adapter-Eyefinity-ready/dp/tech-data/B004RFGK30/ref=de_a_smtd

or, if you prefer Newegg:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814999033

You can also do what I did and use HDMI for one of the monitors since the ASUS monitor model I listed above supports HDMI input. This will save you $20 since you'll only have to purchase one Active/Eyefinity-capable adapter, but the downside is that you'll have to disable scaling in your Catalyst Command Center (a 1-minute task -- you literally drag a slider from the default "15%" to "0%" and everything works perfectly). I have 1 monitor connected with DVI, one with HDMI, and the last with an Active Mini DisplayPort adapter. With this configuration, you can add a fourth monitor (1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x active DisplayPort to DVI) if you'd like, but this is unnecessary for most purposes.

Hope this helped. Again, I'd put my balls on the line for the VE248's, I spend 8+ hours per day staring at these guys and I wouldn't replace them with anything else.

Send me a message if you'd like any more help with this.

Edit: One thing I wanted to add: The main advantage of a triple-monitor setup, in my opinion, is the extra productivity. I can have a .PDF open on one side screen with two-page scrolling, MATLAB/Excel/Etc. open on the other side, and a web browser on the middle screen.

That is to say, I feel triple-screen gaming is more novelty value than anything else. It's something I show friends, but disable when I actually play a game (rather than when I'm trying to showcase it).

First, most games don't natively support or aren't optimized for triple-screen setups; single-screen gaming probably accounts for over 99.9% of a developer's audience (I'd say fewer than 1/1000 gamers have a triple-screen setup), so why would they bother investing significant time into optimizing the game for the extra-high-resolution and extra-widescreen formats that triple-screen gaming requires? You'll likely get some UI stretching or other issues in most games. In Skyrim, for example, it is impossible to read in-game books or properly access the inventory on a triple-monitor setup (without some mods that break other things), since the whole user interface gets stretched across all 3 displays, and only a few lines of text/inventory are visible.

Second, the performance hit is huge. Since your video card(s) must render 3x the resolution of a single screen, assuming that there are no other bottlenecks, your triple-screen framerate will be at best 1/3rd of the single-screen rate. This means a very playable/fluid 70 FPS drops to an unplayable 23 FPS. Calculated the other way, to get 60 FPS on the triple-screen resolution, the game would need to be able to run at 180+ FPS on a single screen. Unless we're talking WoW and Flight Simulator, this means that most "amazing-graphics" games will need to be set to run on Low or Medium settings. Also, when you consider that the added screens do not simply necessitate more pixels to be rendered, but also more geometry & textures to be loaded (for the objects in the extra monitors' fields of view), you start to see how this "1/3rd" metric is truly a best case scenario, and that real-world FPS will be somewhat lower than this. So expect 100 FPS on the single-monitor resolution to drop to ~25 FPS when you activate the two extra screens. Also, from personal experience, games sporadically bog down (brief span of plummeting framerates, typically when a lot of new geometry + textures must be loaded at once) far more often when they're running across all three monitors.

Third, first-person-view games (FPS, etc.) will basically act as fisheye-lens simulators on the side monitors. This happens to a slightly lesser extent in third-person games, but is still existent (in GTA IV, for example, cars become almost comically elongated as they reach the outer edges of the side screens.

With Battlefield 3, I could play on High/Ultra on one screen at 1080P without any issues (~50-70 FPS), but across all 3 screens at 5760 x 1080, even Low settings produced a stuttery 20 FPS, often briefly dropping to 10-15 FPS if I quickly changed my field of view and new visual elements had to be loaded. My modded GTA IV (ENB series with SSAO & HDR, car mods, motion blur, etc.) ran great on one screen, giving me a fluid experience of 50+ FPS with the settings cranked quite high. When I tried to play across all 3 screens, I had to turn off all the mods and turn most of the in-game settings down to Low or Medium in order for the game to be even slightly playable. Since you're greatly expanding the field of view, so many more character models + cars + effects must be rendered, thus once again dropping framerates lower than the "best case" 1/3 value. I did have some success with some games like Saints Row 3, which scaled surprisingly well across 3 screens, but this is also likely due to the fact that the game runs very quickly even when the highest graphics settings are enabled.

Basically, think hard about whether you want to spend $400 on an extra pair of monitors if they're going to be used only for triple-screen gaming. Even on my 3x 24" setup (where the screens occupy my entire field of view), the cool-factor fades after a few days, and I find myself playing all my games with a single screen, even those that have decent triple-screen support. For gaming alone, I would much, much rather have a single 26" monitor @ 1440P than to have 3 separate screens.