Originally Posted by Phantom_Dave
If you look at the one's I linked to that same game comes out on top for the 7970 there too...
Edit: Even though the reviews show otherwise I do think that 2GB of vram is low for MM gaming. Once enough cards are added or they are OC enough to run at high framerates I think the vram will play a bigger part. I'm still anti-AMD for my own reasons but I can't believe they only installed 2 gigs of vram on the 680. 2 gigs is barely enough for a single monitor in my experience. I've been over 1.5 gigs many times already on a single monitor.
I'd be about 99% certain that Surround/Eyefinity resolution Deus Ex comparison actually shows no difference in terms of the impact of vram quantity
. I don't think that the card running out of vram would have nearly that subtle of an effect on the benchmark graph, nor on the fps.
IMHO, the 7970 (like the past few gens of AMD cards) probably simply works better as resolution goes up vs. comparable nV cards. It's been like that ever since at least the 5000-series vs the 2xx series (like say the 5850 vs 285), and it's held true all through the Fermi-era, even when AMD cards had LESS vram than their competitor, they generally performed (relatively) better as resolution went up (until they hit the vram wall).
There's probably a few reasons for that (the way the driver's tuned being a big part I'd guess), but In this particular case, I'd guess that AMD's SSAO algorithm is slightly more efficient than nV's in this particular game.
Also, OC'ing does not increase the 'need' for vram, at all.
Lastly, the amount of vram 'usage' in Afterburner is not true 'bare-metal usage' measurement. It is actually a measurement of the amount of vram being 'reserved' by the application. I've played a few games that have tapped out my vram 'usage' in Afterburner at single monitor resolution (I have 1.28GB), but never actually seen it impact my fps or the way the game plays.
IMHO, people put WAAAAAY too much stock in the vram usage measurements they see from AB. I'd be virtually positive my cards could run your '1.5GB usage' scenario just fine, even though they only have 1.28GB of vram.
If you go back and look at reviews of the 768MB 460 vs. the 1GB 460, there was only one game where there was an actual, obvious performance hit caused by the lack of vram in the 768MB model at 1080p resolution, and that was in Metro 2033. To suggest that 2gb of vram is 'barely enough' for 1080p ... is crazy-talk, IMO Edited by brettjv - 3/26/12 at 8:14am