No game comes even close to using 4GB. All that 6GB hooplah is just crappy port caching related and it's not even needed or required. You will run out of GPU power faster than you will out of VRAM size. MUCH faster.
There are even some eating close to 6gb vram at max settings @ 4k atm... next time ill be smart, and get myself double vram size gpu's, cause this lack of vram stutter when using ultra textures is unbearable.
Funny thing is that my 280X in FC4 uses 2.9GB maxed 50fps. My fiends 290 uses 3.9GB at the same setings 60fps. Looks like it uses how much vram you have.
970 on my end gets about 3GB of use on nVidia mode (mostly depends on what you're doing in game.. flying? in the jungle? in town?) @1080p 60fps~, dips min 40s. But thats maxing out lol. Pretty sure at higher res it will use more.
You can eat up all your VRAM with texture caching - doesn't mean you need that much VRAM to play the game well.
The word of the day is allocate. Now class lets use it in a sentence. A game will allocate as much VRAM as it see's available.
I'd say the game was better optimized than recently released games, on average you will see it at 2GB> for FC4.
As ive stated several times, i have regreted doing that alot. Note it down, if you need help remembering it.
For triple monitors the extra gig of memory from Maxwell, More efficient architecture and cooler running cards would help you greatly.
Let me get this straight. You got rid of cards you were happy with 780 6gb sli and kept cards you weren't happy with 780ti sli. Sounds logical to me.
I remember the debate. You ware pushing how Vram is important and still did the change. God knows why, lol.