New Graphics Card - GTX 660 non Ti or 7850/7870
 

Hi Guys,

owning the game since the beginning, playing occasionally with a machine "fired" by an ATI 4850, I'm thinking about really getting into COD.
So I'm thinking about getting an GTX 660 or a 7850 / 7870 with 2 GB vRam.

I read, that the GTX 660 can not access ram at full speed if the ram is filled with more than 1,5 GB. I wonder how the impact on performance is. Does anybody have any experience with the GTX 660?

I prefer a quite and cool system. Therefore overclocking is not really an option. The new graphics card should be silent or barely hearable.
Also I don't want to spend more than 230 Eur. I know that my CPU is a bottleneck for any better graphics cards and I'm not planning on upgrading my CPU. I don't have to have everything on max.

Priorities:
- silent
- cool
- COD performance / compatibility
- price

These are my specs:

Q8200 native QuadCore @stock
4 GB Ram
24" TFT @1920x1200
80 GB Intel SSD
TM Cougar

In my opinion, I would say, that your CPU will be an issue and the impact of the card could be insufficient. But I am not aware of the cards that much.

For explaination: You have VRAM on the card and you have normal RAM on your pc mainboard.

In clod, the texture load and other VRAM filling things are quite high. At 1080p resolution it could be somewhere around 2 gb, which you will need. BUT: As soon as the card runs out of its own VRAM, in this case 2gb, it has to load from normal RAM, which as a much slower bus to the graphics card. This causes stutters. Also the cpu load on 2 cores are getting high and you normally need nothing else, but horsepower in GHz to solve that, as the game not sufficiently devide the workload for the cores.

At 1080p, 2gb vram on the card should be recommended, because it needs that amount. The second thing is the speed of the interface between graphics card and vram. I do not know the speeds of these cards, but in the 680 there is a much slower interface, than in the hd7970, which has 384(?) bit interface (i am too lazy currently to look up). So, the nvidia also has a disadvantage there!

Why is it a disadvantage? - clod uses a streaming engine, where content is constantly streamed from your hdd to your RAM and then to your VRAM to serve you with the much changing landscape, while flying through such a massive map with this massive viewing range.

So, every part in this chain can have influences in your performance.

Recommended for new invests:
1.) A new graphics card with min. 2gb, better 3gb or more for the future in gaming (cry engine could scale good and detailed up to an amount of more than 4gb ram usage).

2.) At least native quad core cpu with a high raw power (ghz).

3.) RAM will be ddr3 and should preferrably be also a bit faster. I think 1600 is common and also good enough.

4.) Your storage drive: At least the windows partition and the games should run on a SSD drive. This can create also a performance increase and it is fast in loading ( do not wanna miss this in my pc and I will only buy normal hdd for storage-> depending on pruce, I will also use ssd for data storage)

That are the influences and somewhere here you can find a thread, where you can see, how cpu and gpu behaves and at which border the cpu will bottleneck, because workload on the cores are getting messed up.

Clod runs well on my GTX 550 ti, as a nvidia user i would reckon the GTX 660 ti would be perfect, its a more powerful card than mine. i bought a 600w PSU to power the 550 though as 400w wont cut it, even though it says it will.

I bought an EVGA 660 (ti) about three weeks ago. It runs clod maxed out at a steady 55-60fps. Over London it drops to about 35, but still very doable.

Well i use a GTX 580 with 4GB 2133MZ RAM and a 2600k @ 4.8 and i can run this game perfect(ish) at MAX settings at a res of 1920x1080.

If you can pick up a second hand 580/570 off eBay, this will be much better performance than a new 660ti for around the same price.

Also, depending on your motherboard and if it can support a quad core CPU, try looking for a used CPU on eBay.

Thx for your Reply Stublerone.

The Q8200 is a native QuadCore. It is comparable to the Q6600.



I'm more the buy medium range graphics card every 1 1/2 years type of guy. A top notch graphics card lasts for no more than 3 years but is much more expensive than the medium range.
Also buying a top notch graphics card makes my wallet weep. :grin:

The Q8200 is a native QuadCore. It is comparable to the Q6600.

No option for me at the moment as I would have to change my MB, CPU and RAM.

Windows 7 and COD is on my SSD.


So any further thoughts?

No thought to what i said about the 580?

Have a look into the "technical threads" area. You will find a sticky post "recommended settinfs wit 1gb, 2 gb card" or something like that.

This thread also talks about the relations between the components a bit. I know, that somewhere here, a guy talks about the cpu usage turns into bottleneck as soon as 2 cores are not having the same amount of load. When one core tries to work 100%, then the bottleneck is already there. Aim is to have enough ghz to let the cores work on the same level up to perhaps 80%.

Your ddr2 could be enough, your cpu has perhaps too low ghz to prevent him bottlenecking.

Ssd is a good choice, even if it is just running on sata300. In normal life, the ssd is not capable of running that much faster. I also wait for updating my cpu and wait for new sata or whatever isnterface will be enlarged to reach more power.

Perhaps it really is enough ti run a ati with 2gb and fast interface to reach your goal. You will see a difference, but you must be aware, that you will brake your new investment with the next component. But this is normal and nearly everyone have such problems, when upgrading step by step.

Anybody ideas about the performances of these 2 cards? If they are nearly the same and ati has the better interface, I would give them a try. The new drivers really made them faster and even battlefield, etc. is no longer nvidia terrain. It is now ati terrain for this generation! ;)

Avoid ATI 7970 - are nice card, but not for CloD, with "final Patch" they stuck with the "magic dashed square" graphical bug and flicker a lot (sim faults). Probable same with 7950, since ATI 69xx dont have problem.

http://i48.tinypic.com/1z1wg2q.jpg

I would buy a GTX570, but read the "recommended settings with 1gb, 2 gb card" thread an choose 7970... :(

Sokol1

I was recently in the very same position as you, to upgrade to a 7850 or a GTX 660. Then I changed my mind completely and ordered a TrackIR 5 and a Saitek X-52 instead since I figured those two would make a better improvement for my simming needs than any graphics card BUT since I did a lot of research about the two cards I'll give you my thoughts on the matter.

The answer is easy, GTX 660 if you can afford it. If you can't then the 7850 is a good budget alternative. The 7870 doesn't have as good €/fps ratio as the 660 I'd say so I would rule it out completely. The GTX 660 beats the 7850 in almost everything and gives the 7870 a real good run for it's money. If I had 200€ to put on a new graphics card it would easily be the GTX 660.

I think you will have problems because of slow CPU.You need at least 3.5 GHz CPU and 4 GHz is recomended one.
You may consider buying used q9550 and OC it if your motherboard is capable of doing that.You'll need some aftermarket cooling also.

Definitely NVDIA better than ATI with IL2. I have GTX 660 with fx8320 amd. It runs CLOD almost maxed out (buildings to medium). Faster than 570 for what I've read. I have some FPS drop within groups of bombers but it is tolerable.
The TI3 gb is probably best choice for CLOD, because it fills 2gb vram in some situations, but costs about 100 euro more and it's quite close in price to 670 4gb, which can be considered almost a no compromise card for CLOD.

I got a 660 Ti a few weeks ago.

I would say it's fast enough for CloD even at very high (but not maxed out) settings, but i wouldn't have bought anything less.

You can probably get a 570 or 580 GTX. That might be an option aswell (especially if you would consider buying a used card, you can get them really cheap). But i wouldn't buy those with less than 2 GB. And of course you might need a new PSU if you would go that route. You would get more performance for less money though.

CloD doesn't make good use of the CPU. I have a Q9550 at stock settings and it's usually at ~60 % load in CloD, so overall, i don't think the CPU really matters much, aslong as it's not at very high load.

The graphics card makes a massive difference though. I went from a 460 GTX to a 660 Ti and it went from barely playable at very low settings to very playable at almost maxed out settings.

So instead of investing into a CPU or a CPU/graphics compromise, i would always go for the graphics card first.

(just talking about CloD here, not games in general)

I give up! Too many nvidia guys here.

But again: 7870 vs 660?:

Winner is 7870 by about 10-15%, with new catalyst 12.11, 20-25% could be in the range of possible increases. The 660 has a very low vram interface. It not influences casual games , but streaming engines can be affected by this low performing interface.

Bill of material indicates, that the ati cards are currently of much higher quality in the standard layouts, and also in most custom layouts.

The 7850 has no chance against the 660, but equals a 660ti, which was the intention. The 7850 is just a good performer for its price, not more.

Texture flickering or shadow flickering: partly the fault of the game, bit ati often had this problem with the last cards. It is mainly solved to a good amount, bit the speed trees in clod are a problem, which the driver currently not solves sufficiently.

But nevertheless: They know better. So you should go with the mainstream and buy a half video card from nvidia! ;) Sorry, but that is my opinion. Although I am also Nvidia boy, nvidia got owned this year! People, who do not see this, are not looking enough or do not want to quote, that their investment wasn't that good.

I'm running this sim with gtx560 Ti but with fast 4.5 GHz CPU everything maxed out except trees and houses.This GPU is just a bit stronger than your old gtx460, you can see that clearly here:

http://www.overclock.net/t/948160/gt...lock-for-clock

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...chmarks/02.png

With fast CPU and your new 660 Ti you should be capable of running everything maxed out, 660 Ti is much stronger card then 560 Ti.

With fast CPU you wan't get much in avarage fps, but you will get rid of pauses and stutters.CPU speed helps when textures are moved between RAM and VRAM.
I can give you many examples from my friends and there is one.
He was playing on fast 4 GHz c2duo and gtx260 and it was bad.He upgraded with gtx670 gain some fps but not much improvement.Then he bought q9300 (not q9550 as advised) and gain some performance but he still have pauses and stutters.

Most of other games are not CPU dependent.This one is, like it was old il2 in that time.

Point is that Timon can buy 680 and will have problems.System have to be balanced or the weakest component will be the bottleneck.

I just went through the exact situation about a month ago. I was told to buy the 7850 so I went to the store to get it. I ended up buying the 7870 though. I got home and realized I needed two 6-pin connectors from the PSU, but I only had one. So i took it back and bought the 660 because it only needs one 6-pin connector and only a 450W PSU. I love the 660 now. Runs very quiet, and very cool. As for CLOD its night and day from my 9800GT, game runs around 50-60fps when theres a not to much going on, and only gets down to 35fps over cities and with large bomber formations. Get the 660.

very interesting post :-P

I guess running maxed out means different things for everyone. If I fly alone over the English countryside, I get a constant 60 FPS (which is the limit I'm using), but with more planes and over London, I wouldn't say that I can run it maxed out with smooth FPS (it's not stuttering or freezing or anything though).

If you run everything maxed out (especially textures) then yes. The OP doesn't want to be able to do that though.

Depends a lot on the settings. If you want to run it maxed out in all situations, you need both. I didn't write about the situation on other games.
Of course, but that's what he already posted in his topic. He can't afford to upgrade both his video card and CPU at the same time and he is ready to make a compromise and reduce settings if he has to.

Thx all of you for your comments.

I think I'll go for the GTX 660 2GB as it seems the most reasonable choice for my system. It is quite, cool and energy efficient. It doesn't make sense to buy any better for me or even an older generation card like the GTX 570 as I only have a 450 Watt PSU (beQuiet).

I have two favourites: Asus GTX 660 DirectCU II or MSI GTX 660 TwinFrozr

Which one would you take? The price is basically the same.

I've had nothing but success with my MSI GTX 560 TI. It wasn't that expensive $300 on ebay. March 2011. I've never had any of the crashes or freezes. I have 12 gigs of corsair ddr3 ram and I think that helps. Mother board is an Asus P6T deluxe version 1

Same here, I have the EVGA GTX 560 Ti 2gb card and the sim has been solid for me.

It does not help! :) Your RAM is big enough, when you use 6gb in current systems (except you are using ram disk for something).

What I did was watch all the reviews on everything on youtube.. Linus on tech types on NCIX in Vancouver mainly and others. I didn't want to bother with any water cooling that was the main thing. Then bought all of my stuff after about two months of mulling everything over. If you want detailed reviews on products I would go to NCIX tech tips with Linus on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJKBK48OcKQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cgcZ...feature=relmfu

Oooooooh noooooo, not this guy!!! I also saw couple of reviews about several topics. He is agood presenter and some information is quite good. But this guy often advertises something and in another episode he completely say the other way.

Had seen reviews about gfx cards, monitors and recently some keyboards. Interesting, but it is not, what I would make my decisions on. ;)

I mean: This guy has to serve the main market and this is casual playing modern warfare, bf3 and other shooter guys and this is clearly not, what I want to know, especially in core hardware like gfx cards and cpu, etc.

I rely on professionals. In monitors for example on tests from prad.de.

Well I got very lucky then because I haven't had any trouble with this game. It must be my genius :)

Low resolution? Graphics details lowered? You can have success with every card with vram bigger than 2! Again: clod is not about graphics. It is about vram and a balanced system with good cpu and suitable gpu.

A subjective answer like "my system runs it great" is not sufficient. Perhaps you do not see, what others do? ;) Some guys also say, that their gtx 295 runs great in a certain game. When I came to them to test, the microstutters were terrible. They do not see it! So this is subjective.

FWIW I recently bought the 660SC (super clocked) and i can now run BF3 at 1920x1080 on ULTRA settings with an avg fps of 45-60. i did a quick test with the black trk and it was very smooth as before with my amd 6790 it would stutter :(

You can get the 660sc for $230 at microcenter and if they still have the deal going you get assassins creed 3 or borderlands 2 when you buy any 6 series card :) Here are some nice benchs to help put things in perspective.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...1&limitstart=7

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,18.html

S!

I have good overall performances with maximum settings but without shadows...
Shadows for me are a fps killer...
I have a Q6600@3.0mhz 4gbDDR3@1333 GTX660ti Jetstream 2gb and i run the game @1900x1200

maybe shadows are more CPU dependent? who knows?

Ciao!

You can get 45-60 fps with every new card on ultra settings. It depends on your resolution, which you do not mention. Is it ultra preset or custom made up to every ultra setting? Is it with aa, fxaa, msaa or what? You haven't mention a lot of things to come to your ultra fps rate. In real ultra and with everything on highest setting and with a res of 1080p, your card cannot reach that. The only cards who can reach this iste 680 overclocked and the 7970 ghz edition (alsi overclocjed).

So this is misleading. It also depends on multiplayer or singleplayer fps. They are also different. So, your statements with your 660sc is obsolete! Sorry! ;)

ULTRA preset for BF3 @1920X1080 and same rez with settings for CLOD @VERY HIGH (preset) i got an AVG of 36 on black death trk and 32 FPS at roof top level over london. the 660SC is a nice mid range card that can play both games with good picture quality.

Avg fps are so unimportant in this case. See, what your minimum fps are is more interesting. bf3: the best cards reach generally about 69fps or something like that. So why should your card should perform that as well? Because it do not? Is 45-65 more 45? That should explain it. Sorry, but I do not understand, why people always add their own opinion in fps to their new gfx cards!?!

For the people it always work 10-20fps better than in officual benchmarks. ;)

BTW: Don't forget to add additional 10-20% of the fps on every 7xxxx series (bf3 = round about 20%) - in newer benchs the ghz editions should be in front of the 680 (nearly equal). Add more speed (overclocked editions or handmade) in the 7xxx series and get another 10-20%. ;)

I will say that I am playing BF3 on Ultra settings with fairly great performance (Without AA, though).... CloD is running beautifully but definitely not on very high (A mix of high and medium).

I'm thinking that both may open up a hell of a lot more, performance wise, when I ditch this CPU and mobo and get some serious ram in my case.

Ram is unimportant in your rif. The cpu burns the performance in some cases. Bf3 @1080p at 35 is normal value, but you can get higher with the suitable ati. Even a 580 gets that fps.

You can see in your own posts, that your initial advertisement about your video card has proven wrong with your own posts. Please stopp advertising things with 10-20% more performance than it actually has.
It can be, that you are satisfied so far, but if I do not know, which is better, then please do not write down a recommended card. Simple as that! No knowledge should result in no post or in a post with the facts you really can offer him.
Promises are already given by nvidia and should not be completed by you.

Btw: nvidia recently had to state, that another lie was written on the boxes of the 6xx series. They tried to make a fool of you and simply tried to ship around the directx 11.1 problem with software trying to wash the request away. But now you can say, that the stated directx11.1 support does not seem to be available. Cruel truth and I am waiting, what lie they find next. :)

Black death track with my specs fps 52 avg 72 max 8 min. All settings on high or very high, textures original. Improved clouds mod enabled, and hakenkruz. I also have injectSMAA by mrhaandi v 1.2 for DX-10 enabled with jsgme and vsync is enabled as well. SSAO is checked but I don't know what the difference is. Driver version 310.90. Res is at 1920x1080. If its not too late to help. Very satisfied with actual gameplay performance as well, actually actual gameplay is better I've never gotten a min score of 8 like in the track. The 8 was during the many explosions and view changes when the spits on the runway got bombed and it was a very quick drop. Also my card is a ti which is better than the vanilla 660 if you want to spend a little extra and having a better cpu helps as well. I have no experience with ati cards so I can't speak for them. Here's a review, again its the ti but its going against a 7950 both 3rd party OC'd cards but it may help http://techreport.com/review/23981/r...0-ti-revisited

That is new 660ti ac3 in comparison to a slightly overclocked 7950. So the already is void. Find other reviews comparing fully overclocked, air cooled models or afd another 20% at least at this test for the ati.

Fly on high res more than 1080p and the card hicks up because of the lack of ram and a interface, which is already 6years old or so...

See the comments. 240 comments seems to be a discussion and this review and tech report already had claims about their professionality way before this review. Not a good side to decide, what to buy.... That is well known in the community.

Well I could care less what card he ultimately buys. I just wanted to give him some real performance numbers on this particular game he could use. Which I just got the day I made that post with the latest driver installed. I would hope if I were to ask the same question the radeon owners would post their results as well. I only posted a review I thought would help. This particular line in the review did get my attention "Looking over the listings at Newegg, 7950 cards are going for as little as $299.99. However, only a few other cards can match the Vapor-X's 950MHz boost clock(which sells for $329.99), and they all cost more than the Sapphire" the 660ti was overclocked also at a price of $299.99(this was at the date of review). The comments are useless because no matter what card "wins" there will be tons of "fan boys" of the "losing" card telling you how the review was flawed. Which is probably a reason for me not to post links to reviews in the future, thanks. I have no allegiance to nvidia as it's nothing but a corporation trying to make money from me and if I thought I would get a better deal from radeon I would change over no problems as I have no previous experience with those cards, therefore no negative experiences. However if he were to buy the 660ti not the 660(as stated in the OP), I have a feeling he will be more than satisfied with its performance as my experience thus far has been positive. Although looking at his processor it may be a bottleneck for any new card with this game.

I just stated, that a 660ti loses and that the review is incorrect. Although they have brought ac3 version of the 660ti to the market nearly 1 year after lauch of the 7950, it is still no discussion, which card wins. Also the 670 loses, if the test is set up fair. We have this discussion also with magazines here in germany. They have also rated pro nvidia as they are sponsors of the magazines. But in forums, where people are skilled with gfx cards, even the nvidia buyers say, that the 6xxx series undoubtly lost against ati this time. Not much of a problem as both cards are playable, although you buy half of a card at nvidia. So they should be half the price of ati cards. :)

The only thing is: I see it everywhere -> every nvidia user is directly recommending his card, although they simply do not know, what they are talking about. The facebook mentality forces every poor child to leave comments, which are influencing other people to their opinion and not to facts.

Ati users seem to be a bit different: I do not see that much kids spamming around their senseless comments. Simply, because they all want a nvidia for christmas, not depending on performance, just to have the most expensive nvidia card. And then they do an unboxing video or praise their great rig with a lets play xxxx on Ultra with a 680 oc. Sorry, but the supporters of nvidia are becoming more and more childish to me. I just rely on what information I get from sources, who are really interested in equal chances for both. And I only hear on people, where I can directly see some skill in what he says. I am not an apple buyer! ;)

Yes 660Ti will loose with few percent, but that review pointed out that AMD have problems with drivers and AMD admitted that.Even if fps is bit higher in general it fluctuate a lot more which causees stutters even if fps is good.
And AMD 7000 are much longer on the market.

http://techreport.com/review/24022/d...e-in-windows-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLcq6...layer_embedded

And here that is explained in simple words that anyone can understand.
Look at 4:15.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=5xfHEu7JCz8

And AMD responded to that.

http://techreport.com/news/24136/dri...ies-of-updates

But the oc versions of the 7950 are currently just underperforming. Set the same clocks on the 7950 and you can add another 20-30% on both ends and it destroys the 660, 660ti and the 670 and equals nearly a stock 7970 or a 680.

You do not see the obvious. Nvidia is currently fighting with its higher clocks. And if you push the ati to the limits as nvidia does it with their card, you cab see, that the whole 79xx series beats their nvidia counterparts. And that not only with a slightly difference, but with ahuge difference.

And as the materials of ati cards are currently higher standard and as the card begins very early before frying it to produce glitches as warning. You can directly push it to 1000mhz with sufficient cooling, even with air cooling. If the materials would allow to run on higher temperatures with no look on lifetime, the gap with standard oc possibilities will be even bigger for ati cards.

I don't care whether my card is made of tinfoil and swiss cheese as long as it performs when I put it in my rig. All I know is my 660ti performs and performs fluidly. Even when frames drop, the motion I see is still smooth. In other words, the only way I know frame rates drop is if I have the fps counter going. Otherwise, I couldn't even tell while playing. I have seen in most reviews that the ati cards fluctuate, as vranac has pointed out in his post. While I agree that ati cards should be better if you just looked at their physical specs. That fact remains that they get spikey performance. Or if you like conspiracy theories you could assume that nvidia has paid off all the reviewers. However I am not a believer in a theory where ati could easily do the same. Quite possibly in the near future ati will get the issue resolved. At that point, I may quite possibly own a ati because I hold no allegiance to nvidia. For right now however, I love my 660ti which performs on this game the way I like.

So, when u do not care to buy something sufficiently and u do not care about all, why do you recommend your card to others? You shouldn't care to post here, too, because you do not seem to ....care... And u do not seem to know facts. Somebody is asking you what to buy, then it is redundant what you bought. It should be someone knowing something. Sure we can argue on real life purposes and senses of one ir the other card, but u just type in, tjat your card is good and mention a weird test with unfair conditions. And with that you start recommending a 660 ti, which is not worth the money and performance sucks in comparison to the other card. I mean: We are comparing a low end ti card vs the second best card of ati, which costs the same. It is like comparing a nvidia gtx version vs ti. It makes no sense and the winner is clear, although you find other wrong reviews.

This simply makes somebody angry to hear that all the time. I call these posters facebook and youtube fagots posting their life and their bad knowledge into the world. Kids with no senses for realism and sufficient interaction skills. Just weird to see that in a sim forum with mainly a bit skilled people. I think, time is changeing and more and more guys came here to leave their nvidia post. And although I am a fan of nvidia, I cannot see that lack of knowledge, especially for this gfx card generation, any more.

I am not the ultimate gfx card expert, but I know, when to claim sth wrong. I do not want to bash, but in the gaming coms I interact, I only hear unsatisfied nvidia users and already have positive feedback from guys switching to the ati. Especially the 680 was sold by many of these gamers and they are now more happy with the ati, what the first couldn't believe. But they are mostly non casual gamer and spend some time in gaming.

Now I lost my track!..... Hm, I don't care. Have fun reading this weird post. ;)

That's right I don't care what he buys. In my first post in this thread all I did was reference the performance of my card in this game which I thought may be of value to the OP. I also recalling I had nothing bad to say about ati. I did however reference a review that seemed to me as if nvidia performed better in some games and ati in others but in the end said the 660ti had slight edge because of ati fluctuations. You were the one that went in attack mode as if you have some personal vendetta against nvidia owners. You keep mentioning these unsatisfied nvidia users and all their posts but you seem to be the only one posting that is unsatisfied even though you do not seem to own one. You keep mentioning all these unfair reviews but you fail to provide links to anything that refutes the reviews, except referencing trolls and fanboys in the comments section. You pounce on everyone that posts anything in these forums that seems to be in favor of nvidia, yet claim that they are the ones being childish. Like I said if you just look at the specs of the ati cards I agree they should blow away an nvidia the reality however is they do not. This is why the reviewers are often surprised by their own results. That leaves us with what must be superior nvidia drivers or inferior ati drivers as the cause. It seems that you are the one lacking knowledge that drivers can make all the difference, and apparently so in this case.

Yeah, and seemingly AMD are working on it.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/1...latency-issues

I hope that's going to make a significant improvement.

I hope so as well. I have a feeling if they do and unless nvidia beefs up their cards, my next card may be an AMD.