Whats the point of saying, on a higher resolution thats where more memory comes into place.
So inq, why dont you show us at higher resolutions the scores since thats what the 2Gb Graphics card is for. And the two GPU's where at different frequency's.

Admit it. The title reads "GTX285 battle, Asus versus Gigabyte". Uh, what battle? Just giving the vantage scores isn't battle. That too without even equalizing the clocks first. You could at least have given some numbers for scenarios where 2GB really matters. Or tested frame rates in some games to see which games benefit from the added memory. And then in the summary (don't know what you're summing up, as there's nothing in the article to really sum up) you just say more memory will be useful at higher res and GPU compute. Anyone can guess that. Where are the numbers and then the analysis of those numbers?
I think Anandtech is probably the best site for benchmarks. They not only give you the numbers, but actually try to find out the reason behind those numbers.

Run a benchmark test using GTA IV, I would be very interested in the results, as GTA IV performs better with more GPU memory. It would test the future capability of these graphics cards when 2GB becomes standard or a minimum memory requirement.

I have a XFX GTX 285 on a Q9650 rig and the card rocks. There is not a game out there that can take this thing down including Crysis and Farcry 2 at 1920 x 1200.
It is quiet too and as a single card it does not need a sub station to power it. never understood the multiple card thing. The game compatibility problems would piss me right off.

at least on GTA IV view distance:

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=737&pageid=4

So perhaps in terms of raw performance, 2GB is just extra fluff but if IQ is taken into consideration, then it will matter depending on your wallet. But what would I know - I am still stuck with my X1900XT! :(

Ofcourse there is no difference. The 2GB cards do shine on high resolutions in Crossfire/SLI - alone they are all pointless.