How did you come to that conclusion? This is from your own quote:
I think you are misunderstanding the results of the Titan X that showed it used up to 7Gb, but that does not mean that it needs 7Gb for smooth results.
You failed to read my post at all didn't you...
That was their review of the game itself, when doing actual VRAM testing they found
Even though the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X has the least amount of dedicated VRAM here it too does not differ much in performance using "Very High" textures. It seems that dynamic VRAM usage is not harming performance here.
While this game may use a lot of VRAM with "Very High" textures, it doesn't suffer in performance because of it.
I made it bold so you don't miss it this time
Also:
In regards to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, which has 12GB of VRAM onboard it consumes a whopping 7GB of VRAM at "Very High" textures. This means the GeForce GTX 980 Ti may not only be reaching its maximum VRAM usage but may be bottlenecked with 6GB of VRAM onboard when running "Very High" textures in this game.
Does that help?
They've hated the Fury series since release and always take a jab at it for having "only" 4GB of HBM. Yet they have failed to provide any proof that it has actually been a problem during playable settings. When actually researching it, they found out that not only was the 4GB HBM not a bottleneck but that the 6GB 980 TI was potentially bottlenecked!