The question to my mind is moot in the sense that twin 590's or 6990's is a terrible purchase. I can't imagine spending an extra $700 for a 11% increase in frame rates.
Guru3D uses the following games in their test suite, COD-MW, Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, Metro 2033, Dawn of Discovery, Crysis Warhead. Total fps (summing fps in each game @ 1920 x 1200) for the various options in parenthesis (single card / SL or CF) are tabulated below along with their cost in dollars per frame single card - CF or SLI:
$ 725.00 6990 (762/903) $ 0.95 - $ 1.61
$ 750.00 590 (881/982) $ 0.85 - $ 1.53
An extra $750 to go from 881 to 982 ????? Not me.
If ya all anxious to spend the same $1500, you could have three 580's and they get 1030 fps.....
As for the no difference, this article says there is, at least w/ some games (STALKER) and at the higher resolutions:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p67-gaming-3-way-sli-three-card-crossfire,2910-7.html
My beef w/ this article is twofold:
1. Where's the 580, 590 and 6990 ? Ya ain't gonna start to push bandwidth w/o just the low to mid range cards. Kinda like testing whether 200 mph tires have an effect on hi speed handling on car that tops out at 100 mph.
2. I am less interested in average fps than I am in minimum fps. Like memory speed and CAS timings, we don't see a real impact on average fps but we do see an impact on minimum fps. An article like this w/o the top cards and w/o looking at minimum fps misses the obvious questions.