A common misconception?

[C64]

Now i do not own a 22" tft screen i am still a crt fanboy
but i have noticed a lot of people giving advice to get
minimum 640mb 8800 gts cards for these 22 " monitors that
have a max resolution of 1680-1050 correct me if i am wrong but
isn't the 320mb card faster at that resolution than the 640mb card?
or if not virtually identical?
From all the reviews and graphs i have seen the 640mb and above cards like the 8800gtx only seem worth getting if you intend on gaming above 1680-1050 like with a 24" + tft.
Or am i utterly wrong just seems like bad advice
is being given where people think they actually need a 640mb card
when a 320mb card is more than adequate at 1680-1050.
After all i think the monitor will be kept longer than the card
seems like a waste of £60 to me.I will see if i can find some
true comparisons between the 320 and 640 @1680-1050.

 

[Mud]

Additional video memory is required for high resolutions. Video memory is also required for high levels of texturing, AA, AF, etc...exactly where you hit the point where you run out of video memory and the framerates suddenly cave in varies from game to game.

Doom3 ultra graphics supposedly required 512MB, 320MB doesn't seem like much any more.

 

[Kojak]

In some games the 640MB GTS will be better than the 320MB GTS but lets face it, by the time the 320MB GTS is no good for running games at 1680x1050 the 640MB GTS isn't going to be up to the task either.

 

[C64]

That's what i thought and thought it bad advice as i think @1680-1050
there isn't a huge difference between the cards.