Originally Posted by KittensMewMew
This is exactly my point, you can't just say "1gb of VRAM isn't enough at 1080p for today's games!" because there are so many other factors involved. The OP thinks that the higher minimums he is experiencing in games is simply due to his upgrade in VRAM to a 6970 2gb from CFX 5850s (1gb), when CFX has issues with minimum framerates in some instances.
Go look at reviews
of the 6950 2gb. Despite the fact that it has 2gb of VRAM, it sits at almost the exact same FPS as the 5870 1GB from 1680x1050 all the way through to 2560x1600. The architechure, clock speed and VRAM capacity and speed all relate into your FPS, and one single part does not translate into a better experience.
Go look at GTS 250 1gb vs 512mb reviews. Same thing, there is maybe a 1 fps difference in most games. Or the 4870 512 vs 1gb. There are differences, but not usually drastic unplayable vs playable between the two.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you are saying. For a single display resolution, especially at 1080p or lower, there aren't many games that will see usage above the 1GB of VRAM. But I also agree with the OP's sentiments that we are starting to see that happen, especially if a gamer is interested in playing with MODs that add gigs and gigs of content to games, on top of maximum graphical settings.
And to your point about the different architecture, you're right. It's difficult to prove a point when migrating to a completely different architecture that happens to also have more VRAM at the same time. You may be interested in this article that I posted a few pages back:
It pretty much justifies the notion that the higher the resolution and the more AA applied, the higher your VRAM requirements will be. This much is true. If you take notice of the VRAM usage graphs, you should also see that at 1920x1200, a larger number of games either meet or approach the 1GB VRAM mark, so we're really not too far off.