So yeah, should I get the 3gb version of the EVGA GTX superclocked 660ti, or the 3gb version of the EVGA GTX superclocked 660ti? I'm on a tight budget, so is it worth the money? Is there a big performance difference?
2gb. You wont need 3gb if your planning to run at up to 1080p. As stanththeman123 said, you can also go 7950, better card than 660ti, especially at higher res. And may be even cheaper or same price point. But you would miss out the physx of nvidia. So it would really come down to brand preference. if your into nvidia, go 660ti 2gb, if you can afford 670, then much better, but since the choice is only between the 2 660 ti's, go 2gb. if not a fan of nvidia, better get a 7950.
do you want to run skyrim with lots of visual mods? if so then yes you want 3gb, many people are cracking the 2gb mark with skyrim + mods. If you just want to run recent games as they are with high detail settings then 2gb is fine at the moment. While the 7950 can be overclocked past a 680 or 7970, this would take a lot of cooling and tweaking and might not be stable 24/7. the card probably wont last too long when overclocked so much and having too much voltage going through it either.
Just throwing out there... the "GB" of a graphics card is talking about how much VRAM (video ram) the card has. Just like the RAM in your computer, adding more only makes things faster if you don't already have enough - past that point and you see no increase.
Like people have been saying, at a resolution of 1920x1080 there isn't any need for more than 2GB of VRAM except in one certain case. However, even if you fit that case, you shouldn't buy the 3GB version of the 660ti. Here's why: The 660ti has a neutered memory bus compared to it's bigger brothers the 670 and the 680. While it normally doesn't affect much if you overclock the VRAM a little, it will sputter and die with 3GB of VRAM, giving no better performance even if 3GB is called for.