Wii U specs are surprising, says Sonic developer, specifically the GPU and memory

[Viper1]

Baron said:

Viper1 said:

Have you ever seen the look one someones face when they think you don't know what you're talking about?  I'm making that face right now.

It's a 32 bit application so it would never use more than 3.5 GB to begin with.  AND I've never seen anyone use more than 1.8 GB

Open Task Manager and check the memory usuage of the BF3 executable.

Oops. I meant with Battlefield 3 system memory usage can go up to 6 GB's. As for never seeing anyone use more than 1.8 GB, I have had plenty of times where memory usage in Windows alone passes 2 GB. I've got a total of 12 GB's and on average 16% of that is in use when I'm in desktop. That's already 1.9 GB's for just running my system. With Battlefield my memory usage goes up to 45%. Or about 5.4 GB's.

The output resolution has only had a significant impact on the graphics card's memory in the early days of 3D graphics cards ...

With today's cards there's a clear difference between 2GB and 3GB cards. The nVidia GTX680 is faster than a 7970 (the original one) when it comes to 1080p gaming but when the resolution is enhanced to 1440p or 1600p or Eyefinity the 7970 comes out on top.

So clearly, there's an advantage to be had with increasing video memory.

But a console is not a PC.  You need to look at just the BF3.exe file in Task Manager to see how much memory it is actually using.

Now look what you said in your second reply.  Only AFTER you exceed 1920 x 1080 resolution does having the higher RAM card matter.   Since none of the consoles will render games higher than 1080p...see where I'm going with that?