Originally Posted by Roadhog
I bet if someone made a thread asking if a gt240 was better than a 6970 Rollo would say get the gt240.
Instead of making ridiculous suppositions, why not try to disprove something I've posted.
Facts are facts: the 3GB GTX580s are simply a more reasonable buy for a person running 75 X16 resolution on the basis of their 50% higher VRAM alone.
VRAM use at 60X12 4XAA at AVP at 1.8GB, and that's a much lower res than Slawter is running. Still thinking 2GB is the way to go for the guy I was speaking too?
Wow, Stalker uses 1.8GB of VRAM at 60X16 4X too. Gee those "great" 6970s have a whole .2
GB to spare to run that much higher res, but those magic 6970s can pull it off!
And Need for Speed Shift at 1.7GB, what a trend!
JC2 at 1.9GB at the lower res with some higher AA, but that .1GB the 6970s are packing would surely have him covered at 75X16.
Huh, even FC2 at the lower res at 1.8GB VRAM use, and at 8X AA at the 2GB a lowly 6970 has.
And Dirt 2 at the same 1.8 and 2GB VRAM use at the much lower res.
Here's the thing: I'm just RIGHT. You guys can yell about "value" and link to the review sites that go out of their way to find a game and setting where the ATi card wins, but not one thing you can say trumps the above.
The guy I was talking to (Slawter) has a 75X16 rig. 6970s have 2GB of RAM. I just proved beyond a shadow of doubt that if he wants to use some AA 6970s don't have enough VRAM to do the job.
So what's next? Are you going to post "Maybe he wants to run the montors he recently spent over $3000 at lower resolutions so he can save $500 on his graphics!"