You're missing the points presented, prolly I didn't present them well enough:
1. That's article is talking about
5760 resolution..... 3 times the resolution we are talking about here. I don't see that all these games as having more than 3 times the GFX demand of those in the subject test or that every one of those games needs > 6 GB to play at 1920 x 1080, despite what they blab on their web site. (see kitguru article below).
2. Shaow of of Modor (SoM) says it needs 6GB, it doesn't...maybe at 4k but not 1080p. Max Payne "said" it needs 2750 ....
you can't even select 5760 resolution with a 2 GB card. Yet, if you install 4 GB, set the resolution, then remove the 4 GB card and install the 2 GB... there is no problem. The "problem" with having < 2 GB in this instance is faked.... the developer won't let you choose a setting pronouncing you can't use it because you need 2750 MB and yet when you "fool it" into thinking its there, no problem whatsoever.
3. The second article tested one of you listed games "Shadow of Mordor" with the 970 in response to forum claims that the 970 "couldn't cut it" and was stuttering, dropping frames and all the symptoms you mention .... yet Guru3D's testing, they were unable to replicate the problem. To quote an old but popular commercial "Where's the beef ? ..... from the Guru 3D article.
At 2560x1440 I tried filling that graphics memory [ running Shadow of Mordor], but most games simply do not use more than 1.5 to 3 GB at that resolution combined with the very best image quality settings. This includes MSAA levels of up-to 8x. At the best settings and WHQD we tried, Alien Isolation, Alan Wake, BioShock Infinite, Hitman, Absolution, Metro Last Light, Thief, Tomb Raider, Asassin’s Creed Black Flag. ....
So the two titles that do pass (without any tricks) 3.5 GB are Call of Duty Advanced Warfare and of course that has been most reported to stutter is Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. We measured, played and fragged with COD, and there is just NOTHING to detect with the graphics memory fully loaded and in use.
Overall you will have a hard time pushing any card over 3.5 GB of graphics memory usage with any game unless you do some freaky stuff. The ones that do pass 3.5 GB mostly are poor console ports or situations where you game in Ultra HD or DSR Ultra HD rendering. In that situation I cannot guarantee that your overall experience will be trouble free, however we have a hard time detecting and replicating the stuttering issues [in Shadow of Mordor] some people have mentioned.
So that's where I'm going .... the forum reported issues have not as yet been confirmed by actual side by side, verified testing at settings peeps actually play at .... does anyone go for 16xAA ? Would anyone think that the visual improvement is worth the performance hit ? If not, then testing at such a setting serves what purpose ?
Manufacturer's VRAM need claims have proven to be false and (as evidenced above) even when the game can **use** more than the VRAM available, this does not necessarily mean performance is actually impacted if it's not available as was shown above with Max Payne. And again here:
http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/matthew-wilson/shadow-of-mordor-pc-testing-1080p-1440p-4k/3/
Judging from our testing, its safe to say that you can ignore that 6GB ‘requirement’ for Ultra textures at sub 4K resolutions, the game is perfectly playable with a 3GB GPU [at 1440p].
And THG wrote:
If you really want to crank up the graphics level to ultra, a lowly GeForce GTX 660 or Radeon R9 270 should yield passable performance at 1080p.
And showed it delivering 43.2 average and 32 fps on ultra settings with a single 760.
I am not saying there aren't situations where you can "create' a need for more than X GB....I'm saying I haven't found a reliable source showing it is or is not a factor under normal game play. People on forums were ablast with claims of a need for 4GB of the 7xx series but side by side testing in that article blew that outta the water showing even when the game was capable of using it, not having it had no discernable effect.
I doubt you can run outta VRM on one 760....any setting that would be hampered by < 2 GB of RAM would be hampered by the 760 itself. I have no doubt that you can run out of the 2 GB of VRAM on twin 760s, playing SoM at the Ultra High preset. But if ya goal is to play the very toughest of games on ultra high present, you wouldn't have bought 760s, you would have bought 780s. The VRAM should increase in proportion with the strength of card itself. So if the 760's can't handle the ultra high present I gotta think even with two of them the 760 in an of itself is going to be at it's edge or very close to it. SoM should be just fine at the very high present tho I understand there's was an SLI glitch at release where min fps was lower in SLI than with 1 card. Dunno if that's been addressed yet.
So the big question is, where are all the tests and reports testing this ... where's the 3 GB versus 6 GB 780 test.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram