As you have been able to see, the results on the previous pages, have been showing near NIL performance difference in-between the 896MB GTX 275 and the model tested today with 1792MB. Now, we already use very stringent game image quality settings. So we figured, let's crank it up a notch to see if we can create situations where more framebuffer/graphics memory is needed and would show results.

So we took three games and really drowned the card in high image quality modes. 8xAA is the norm here, with ULTRA image quality settings and what now. you name it, we enabled it. Here are our findings.

Far Cry 2

So here's where we retry the games again, this time with the most stringent image quality settings available in our palette of pain.

We now have enabled the Ultra Quality mode and every fricking settings we can enable. Next to that we enable 8xAA and 16xAF. As you can see at 2560x1600 we finally have a situation where the extra framebuffer kicks in. Unfortunately at this point the GPU is not powerful enough anymore, SLI might be an alternative here ;)

HAWX

Hawx then, again we enable every thinkable image quality settings, DX10 mode and then we apply 8xAA. And again we see very little benefit once we compare directly with the 896 MB model. Only in 25x16 the benefit is visiblee, yet again we 'land' (pardon the pun) in a situation where we run out of computational graphics power.

Crysis WarHEAD

Crysis Warhead again, we now enable DX10, enthusiast mode and 4xAA. look at the performance crumble ... as Mister T would say 'paaaaain'. And sure, while at 26x16 we see a nice performance increase over the regular 896 model .. I really doubt you want to play the game with an 11 FPS average in framerate.

This is the reality anno 2009 you guys, such a massive memory configuration is not 'yet' needed. The standard 896MB clearly serves us well.