Before I being, I have no idea if this goes here or in the tech support (I'd think here)...but if it's wrong, would a moderator please move it 
Ok, I've been debating for about a month now on what card is better, and why...I can't decide and I'm getting mixed answers from others on different game forums.
Here are the two cards I'm deciding between:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130683
OR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130610
The 1st one is a 2GB card, compared to the 1 GB one...but has lower core clock/shader/etc speeds
the 2nd one like I said is a 1GB card, but has almost 100 more core clock speed/shader/etc speeds
So, I'm wondering...what card would be best for gaming? and for future uses? (not having to upgrade because one card doesn't have high enough something).
I know most new games coming out later this year are still only requiring a 512mb graphics card, (but when do u think they'd start using a 1 gb, if not more)? so would the 2 GB be better for future use?
Also, I'm getting this graphics card for Warband/Fire and Sword...but not only this game, but also future games like stronghold 3...Red orchestra 2...Arma 3 (next year)...Guild Wars 2 (later this year or early next year)...so I'm wondering what card would be best for that...still being able to run med-high settings a year or two from now (then sli them a year or so later)...
Thanks for the help everyone, if someone could give me a detailed list (or just a straight forward answer as to why one is better, and what is better for future use, I'd be thrilled)!
-TodaysKiller
EDIT: forgot to mention, in the other games forums (red orchestra 2, and arma 2)...some said 2 GB card would only be good if I were running high resolution (above 2000 x w/e)...and running multiple Monitors (which I'm not)...but, then on the other hand, I've had some say the 2 GB one because it can load things faster, etc.
Ok, I've been debating for about a month now on what card is better, and why...I can't decide and I'm getting mixed answers from others on different game forums.
Here are the two cards I'm deciding between:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130683
OR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130610
The 1st one is a 2GB card, compared to the 1 GB one...but has lower core clock/shader/etc speeds
the 2nd one like I said is a 1GB card, but has almost 100 more core clock speed/shader/etc speeds
So, I'm wondering...what card would be best for gaming? and for future uses? (not having to upgrade because one card doesn't have high enough something).
I know most new games coming out later this year are still only requiring a 512mb graphics card, (but when do u think they'd start using a 1 gb, if not more)? so would the 2 GB be better for future use?
Also, I'm getting this graphics card for Warband/Fire and Sword...but not only this game, but also future games like stronghold 3...Red orchestra 2...Arma 3 (next year)...Guild Wars 2 (later this year or early next year)...so I'm wondering what card would be best for that...still being able to run med-high settings a year or two from now (then sli them a year or so later)...
Thanks for the help everyone, if someone could give me a detailed list (or just a straight forward answer as to why one is better, and what is better for future use, I'd be thrilled)!
-TodaysKiller
EDIT: forgot to mention, in the other games forums (red orchestra 2, and arma 2)...some said 2 GB card would only be good if I were running high resolution (above 2000 x w/e)...and running multiple Monitors (which I'm not)...but, then on the other hand, I've had some say the 2 GB one because it can load things faster, etc.
