Originally Posted by Jakester136
I did see the 2gb 6950's they look awsome. However my monitors are only 1680x1050 so idk if it would be worth my extra $$$
Well, here's the thing. One 1680 display is ~1.7 million pixels. 3 is ~5.3 million. One of these will use ~550-750mb of video RAM. You can figure 3 will, of course, use at least double that (if not triple.) 1GB just isn't enough.
If you want high textures with 3 displays, you need 1.5-2GB of video RAM. It will definitely be worth the extra cash. If you want Anti Aliasing, that video ram usage shoots through the roof. I can use my whole 1GB at 1080p.
EDIT: Whoops, my original comparison was to show that a 1080p display is roughly 2 million pixels. Compare this to 5.3million.
Basically, you can make up extra pixel pushing power by going crossfire later on. But you can never make up for the deficiency in v-ram. You'd be forced to buy a new card all over again.
EDIT2: Check out this thread, Jake. http://www.overclock.net/nvidia/8016...ream-card.html
Paradigm compares the 2GB 460s to the 1GB 460s. I understand it's a slightly different scenario than with the AMD cards, but you can see the importance of large amounts of V-RAM at triple-display resolutions.Edited by pursuinginsanity - 1/1/11 at 12:37pm