AMD’s Radeon RX 460 Graphics: Bargain or just bad?

Multi-bazillion-transistor behemoths like Nvidia’s Titan or the AMD Radeon R9 Fury are all very well. But the stats suggest hardly any of us actually buy them. Not a single Titan shows up in the latest Steam survey. If that’s some kind of driver-related GPU flagging anomaly, the next rung down in the form of Nvidia’s GTX 1080 clocks a mere 0.3 per cent of Steam gamers. On the other hand, the third most popular GPU on Steam is Nvidia’s old budget board, the GeForce 750 Ti. Enter, therefore, AMD’s latest attempt at a parsimonious pixel pumper, the Radeon RX 460. Aspirational it ain’t. But could it be that an entry-level board now makes for good-enough gaming graphics? There’s only one way to find out.

Of course, it’s not quite true to say that high-end graphics is an irrelevancy. Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 970 is the single most popular graphics chipset on Steam. But that’s still only five per cent of the total and most of the top 20 GPUs are modest 3D rendering machines. I also can’t help noting just how badly AMD ranks. You have to trawl your way down to 19th position to find the first AMD board, the 7900 series.

That may be partly down to the way the stats are collected and GPUs are identified by the graphics driver. But overall, Nvidia registers a dominant 58 per cent share to AMD’s mere 23 per cent. Hardly a ringing endorsement for AMD hardware. Hold that thought, we’ll come back to it.

Anyway, our muse today is the aforementioned RX 460. I’ve already detailed the speeds and feeds here, along with its arch nemesis from Nvidia, the GTX 1050. But the relevant cut-and-paste passage goes like this:

“The 460 packs 896 of AMD’s Polaris-spec shaders for making pretty pixels and 16 render outputs for spewing them in the vague direction of your monitor. It also has a modest 128-bit memory bus and clocks up to about 1,200MHz.

Price-wise the 460 clocks in at $109 for the 2GB version and $119 for the 4GB effort. Following the recent fire sale on the pound, those numbers in old money are if anything a tick or too higher. Yippee.

Anyway, to put that into context, that’s well under half the 2,304-strong army of shaders provided by the Radeon RX 480 and precisely half the memory bus with and render output count. The 460 is also clocked a little slower than the 480’s 1,266MHz boost frequency. Oh and its texture unit count of 56 looks pretty pitiful compared to the 480’s 144 textures.”

Incidentally, those dollar prices translate into a starting price in the UK of around £95. The specific board I have in hand is the XFX Radeon RX 460 Core Edition in 2GB trim. It clocks in at around £110 in the UK.

So, what’s it actually like to game with? At this stage I normally weave an intricate analytical web that gradually but inexorably coalesces into a coherent image of gaming experience on offer. Or I at least allow for a little suspense. And to be absolutely clear, my hopes were actually pretty high. I hadn’t taken much notice of 460 reviews coming in and arrived with a fairly open mind.

But there’s no getting round it: this card stinks. No doubt being the 2GB as opposed to the 4GB version doesn’t help, but I very much doubt doubling the memory will fully rectify the 460’s awful performance.

Things got off to an inauspicious start when my test PC hung catastrophically during the driver install and rebooted with a disk error. Nice. Unfortunately, that’s not entirely an unusual experience when it comes to firing up AMD boards for the first time. If you have an occupational sideline in playing with these things you learn to dread the initial install process with AMD boards. It probably isn’t actually all that often that it ends in disaster but I’ve had the dreaded black screen that can only be resolved with a full re-install on more than one occasion.

In this case, my installation wasn’t actually nuked but it was hardly smooth sailing. Whatever, the usual Steam borkery eventually surmounted, I kicked off with Doom thinking it would be a nice showcase of what’s possible with a budget board. The Vulkan codepath has absolutely flown on everything else I’ve tried.

But not the 460. I jumped straight to 1080p resolution at Ultra settings and the performance was so appalling, it was a job of work to get the mouse pointer across the screen to access the settings. Eventually I managed to knock everything down to medium in the global options and disable anti-aliasing entirely. Even then, it’s barely playable and a glance up at the frame counter reveals frame rates below 20 most of the time. Nasty.

What is the point of Doom if not top-notch visuals? Which you can’t have with the RX460…

Into Witcher 3 and things are a little better. It’s sort of playable in a hideous, laggy, jerky manner of speaking at fairly high details. Crushing everything to medium makes for moderately smooth frame rates and fairly pleasing visuals. But you’re still right on the edge of playability with no margin in hand.

Shadow of Mordor, meanwhile, is a similar story. Tolerably playable settings at 1080p are achievable, but there’s not a lot of joy in the look or feel of the game. Firing up Total War: Attila didn’t salvage the situation either. The result was a low graphics memory warning and an automatic default to lower texture details.

Not that this delivers anything close to smooth gameplay, regardless of where you put the camera. Bumping the global settings slider across to roughly medium quality settings results in reasonable playability, but at the cost of the bulk of Attila’s vituperative visual appeal.

All of which makes the 460 a thoroughly unappealing proposition, certainly in 2GB trim. Expectations need to be kept in check at this price point to be sure. But there’s affordability and then there are false economies and the 460 falls decisively into the latter camp. It’s just not a graphics card that makes any sense as a purchase for gaming.

The single-port power connector helps with compatibility. If you cared. Which you really shouldn’t

In short, it’s really disappointing to find that after what amounts to a double-node jump in terms of chip production technology with this generation of GPU, this is not only the best AMD can do at this price point but that AMD thinks the 460 is fit for purpose. It’s not, albeit with the aforementioned caveat that the 4GB version might rectify things to at least some degree.

Admittedly, graphics card prices have spiked painfully recently. But if £100 is your limit, the second hand market would be a much better way to spend your money than this awful, sluggish waste of silicon. I wouldn’t lick it were it glazed in honey.

Or just don’t play games, read a decent book or three and save up for something worth buying. Honestly, that would be better than burning money on a card like this. The other alternative is potentially Nvidia’s GTX 1050 and I’ll be having a sniff around one of them shortly.

TL;DR
The AMD Radeon RX 460 2GB is crap.

From this site

106 Comments

  1. FurryLippedSquid says:

    The TL;DR made me snort.

    • Snowcaller says:

      It’s refreshing to see an honest denouement. :)
      When the 1000 series Nvidias came out i got a 970 for pocket money (just under 200GBP). The prices fell like a drunken rock. There’s other ways to spend your money than just new silicon-top of the line.
      I still have 60 FPS on Doom at 1080.
      Happy with my purchase. Second hand silicon isn’t quite the devil it was. But also there’s the option of using older tech with higher Spec.

  2. Sakkura says:

    That BS about installation of AMD cards really doesn’t help your credibility…

    But yeah these low-end cards aren’t attractive. The GTX 1050 is a little more palatable, but then the 1050 Ti is worse value and completely overshadowed by the superior RX 470.

    • Jeremy Laird says:

      Pity you can’t distinguish between your opinions and facts. But then you have form.

      My views with regard to the installation issues are based on my experiences and nothing else. Your experiences may be different. That doesn’t make my experience invalid. That you makes assumptions to that effect doesn’t do much for your credibility. But never mind, eh?

      • Sakkura says:

        You were not just presenting your own experience.

        “If you have an occupational sideline in playing with these things you learn to dread the initial install process with AMD boards.”

        You were presenting this as a widely established fact. Which it is not.

        • Jeremy Laird says:

          Is that right? So you have an occupational involvement and you routinely discuss such matters with colleagues who have the same?

          If we’re talking facts, the fact is that I have the above and that I do discuss this issue with colleagues and the consensus is clear. Calling my credibility into question for relaying this is both sour in tone and ignorant regards the substance of the matter.

          Not that I have an expectation that any of this will strike a chord. Like I said, you have form and that form is a propensity for point scoring.

          • Landiss says:

            That’s really weird. I haven’t heard of any special issues regarding AMD GPUs installation, compared to GeForce. Sure, AMD drivers had bad publicity some time ago, but that has changed and I think they are now considered on par (or even better) with nVidia’s.

            For example, techreport just recently wrote a very positive review of the newest AMD software (including drivers).

            Please don’t take it personally, I’m just surprised.

            Regarding this whole article – well, people expecting technical reviews should really go somewhere else, there are plenty sites that specialise in this. RPS is about games and articles about hardware here are directed to people who don’t know much about it and are not interested in details, objective testing etc. Note that there are no graphs or stats here, it’s only a personal opinion. It doesn’t mean such articles are bad, they are just serving a different purpose.

          • sosolidshoe says:

            Yeah, sorry man you’re the one coming off as trying to point score. I spent years building gaming rigs at multiple budget pricepoints and used several AMD cards over that period myself, and the idea that there’s some widespread “common knowledge/worst kept secret” sentiment in the industry that AMD cards are more prone to killing your rig or crashing it on initial installation than Nvidia is simply garbage. Among petulant brand-war fanboys, maybe, but not actual system builders, at least none I ever encountered either in person or in online communities.

            It happened, plenty of times, but not with a more noticeable frequency than similar crashes, lockups, and BSODs than Nvidia cards, certainly not when viewed over time(as both companies have been noticeably crappier than the other with their software at one point or another).

            And for the record, because sadly this seems to be important to some folk – I have no brand preference, my last card was a 7970, and my present rig uses a 1080, I buy and build based on the intersection of quality and budget at whatever moment in time a rig is being built, not based on Team Red or Team Green, and not based on spurious anecdote from a sample size of “blokes in my office and me”.

          • Jeremy Laird says:

            I neither said it was common knowledge nor implied it was any kind of secret, so that’s pure straw man.

            Moreover, in the recent past I picked the R9 290 as the best buy at any price, so the notion of bias against AMD isn’t credible.

            It was inevitable that the unvarnished tone of the content would upset people. So be it.

          • donnychi says:

            Well, since you’re so quick to judge one of your own viewers, and clearly insult their intelligence for simply challenging your findings. I will step in.

            I’m a hardware reviewer, I specialize specifically in graphics cards and have reviewed a number of them from both AMD and NVIDIA over the years, including the RX 460 and other Polaris based graphics cards. With that in mind, I also keep in touch with a number of engineers and hardware reviewers from other publications. Your issues with installation are just that, YOUR ISSUES. I’ve never heard of anyone routinely facing these sort of problems with AMD hardware, especially disk errors, which have nothing to do with the GPU.

            In regards to performance, I can easily point to a number of graphs from qualified reviewers which showcase the RX 460’s performance being well above what you’ve described here. Heck, NVIDIA’s older 750 Ti performs better than what you’ve described in a number of these titles. This review is laughable at best, and horribly disingenuous at worst. I recommend you all stick to vidoe game reviews which are based on subjective experience, rather than objective fact.

      • dahools says:

        As someone with no “form” the above article does very little for your credibility as a writer/ reviewer/ tech reporter whatever. . .

        A TL;DR of “The AMD Radeon RX 460 2GB is crap.” because a graphics card designed for Moba’s and E-sports gaming link to amd.com does not play the latest blockbuster AAA first person shooter or action games at Max settings is in my opinion quite appalling.

        Having read many of your previous articles and having listened particularly to what you have said about monitors when I was in the market for a new one, I thought you were making sound recommendations and giving good advice, which I took on board when purchasing what I have now. However this article reads as though it is from a different person altogether and makes me seriously rethink about all advice, educated opinions, experience you have shared previously.

        • Jeremy Laird says:

          You have misunderstood the implications of what I said in this post. But if, on the basis of that, you feel you must disregard everything else I have ever posted, that’s OK. Carry on. It’s your choice.

      • kimixa says:

        There is realistically no way that a gpu, no matter how ‘broken’ the drivers, could cause windows to fail to boot with a disk error. The driver model doesn’t allow it.

        It’s much more likely you either accidentally tweaked a sata connection or something when replacing the card, or your motherboard pci-e implementation is so broken it’s amazing it even boots…

      • jmtd says:

        I guess he pushed your buttons but your reply here really disappointed me. I too raised eyebrows at the remark about complete reinstallations. Contrary to your reply here, you and Random Commenter are not on a parity here, what you present in an article carries some weight and implies that this is something many others will experience too. You go on to say so in a later comment but from the article text alone, I was left suspicious and I’m obviously not the only one.

      • Simplex says:

        HardOCP also has problems with AMD cards when benchmarking:

        As we have talked about over and over in the past. We did have issues with Steam VR crashing with our AMD cards. This time, both the RX 480 and Fury X had these BSOD issues. Here is a cut and paste of my notes.
        Clean install new driver BSOD on first Fury X run during SteamVR Beta install. Second run after restart SVRB installed and ran without issue. Required DX runtime install. Installed, rebooted, ran SteamVR Beta, BSOD.
        Fresh OS for RX480 too. BSOD once SteamVR started. Two starts later, BSOD. Succesfull run next time. Ran at least three more times good, shut down. Started back up to get screenshot, SteamVR Beta BSOD. Twice. Went gray twice while gaming.

        Source: link to hardocp.com

      • ChipDipson says:

        Firstly, I have zero experience on the specific matter at hand– I’ve never owned an AMD GPU and never would, because the money i spend on video cards isn’t scrounged from under my couch cushions. More to the immediate point however if I’m choosing to trust either a journalist working for a credible website or Some Asshole in the Comments, you lose my dude

    • Sabbatai says:

      My own evidence is just as anecdotal, but my experiences are similar to the author’s.

      Not only that but every Windows 10 computer I get in my shop that suddenly boots to a black screen with a mouse pointer has either hybrid Intel onboard/AMD or pure AMD. Boot to safe mode, delete the AMD driver completely and it suddenly boots to desktop.

      Now you can trudge through the horrible AMD site to search for your driver. 7600 series drivers are in a different location from mobile variants of the 7600 series. Easy enough for me, but most consumers have no clue and they shouldn’t need to. Not when nVIDIA makes driver updates so simple with one application.

      That isn’t to say this doesn’t happen at all with nVIDIA/Intel hybrid graphics but I see it FAR more often with AMD.

      Even the CCC needed an update when Win10 first launched to stop computers from BSODing after an upgrade from 8.1/7.

      AMD/ATI is well behind the curve, and I used to be a supporter.

      • Premium User Badge

        Ericusson says:

        I never understand why so many manufacturer’s websites are much useless gas piston engines horrors.
        Well actually I do : made by engineers (bad ones) not towards the user.

        When I bought my new laptop (i’m one of the 0,3% woo !), I never even once considered AMD as an alternative. Their public image is disastrous, and I don’t take notice of fanboys anymore who are not so much for AMD/ATI but against the mainstream manufacturer.

        Been there, done that, I grew up and don’t have to define myself against the norm just to feel edgy and thinking going against mainstream gives me a special understanding of reality. It really doesn’t.

        And to the RPS crew, I am glad you guys decided not to give a pass anymore to the most egregious comments after what happened.

      • battles_atlas says:

        Indeed. I’m always willing to give the underdog a shot – its in no one’s interests but Nvidia to have a single source of GFX – but my experience with AMD drivers has been crap. They broke my Window’s 10 install, AMD seem to abandon support for chipsets in the blink of an eye, and their update process is dreadful. Plus I’ve read enough reviews from enough sources to know that their driver updates for new games are often too late. Unfortunately, their current low status is well deserved.

        • Sakkura says:

          AMD drivers have had far fewer issues than Nvidia drivers for the last couple of years. The HDMI color issue, the Pascal VR bugs, Folding@Home breaking repeatedly, and of course the major driver issues that happened with Nvidia cards (and not AMD cards) when Win 10 launched.

        • Vayra says:

          Well, credit where it is due – the Nvidia driver branches ever since Pascal released have been quite shit across the board. And not just ‘annoying little bug-type’ shit. But utterly and smoking pile of shit category, up to the point of ‘TDR’ heaven where the GPU either just clocks down to half the baseclock (even if you’re still on Kepler, and yes I am), gets stuck at baseclock and won’t go idle in Windows, or where an entire range of Micron VRAM can’t handle the stock GPU clocks and requires a full product lineup BIOS update.

          So, let’s not smack AMD for its driver history. Nvidia now bundles the bloatware they call GFE with their drivers and add telemetry to it. They have also shown zero performance increase since the end of Kepler, in fact my 780ti has lost about 2-3% over the years since the last Kepler driver.

          Meanwhile, AMD has pushed an easy 10% extra performance out of its RX480 since launch, and it now equals 1060 3GB in DX11 and surpasses it by 5-10% at 1440p and up, and in DX12, alongside adding their own Shadowplay implementation, no telemetry, no forced bundled junk and no bi-weekly ‘game ready’ nonsense that is actually required to get essential bug fixes.

    • wodin says:

      I agree. Been using AMD for over ten years now mainly due to my budget..but I’ve NEVER had an issue with cards or motherboards.

      I currently use a R9 270 and it ran Doom fine and the Witcher fine to and it’s only a 2 gig card. I do want a new one next year though..I may even go back to nvidea and the 1060 or stick with amd and the 480.

    • mtomto says:

      Who cares… AMD is irrelevant in just about all areas unless you think it is a quality to heat the house while gaming.

  3. visor841 says:

    I think RX460 is for people like me, a nearly broke college student, moving from integrated graphics. I finally bought a graphics card, because I was tired of playing AC: Black Flag at 1024×600 at 15fps (minimum settings, of course). It’s still great fun for me, but my setup is only getting older, (XCOM 2 was just barely playable, but the stuttering was frequent and annoying) and it might be nice to get up to the full 1680×1050 resolution of my monitor. On sale, I’m going to end up paying $70 for the powercolor 2gb. Maybe it’s crap, but crap is better than the potato I was playing on before.

    • Sakkura says:

      You’re better off finding an older used card.

      • visor841 says:

        Eh, I’m hoping this lasts me until AMD stops updating drivers for it, so newer the better. What would you suggest for $70 otherwise?

        • Sakkura says:

          Depends what’s available, right now there’s a $60 GTX 660 Ti on Ebay for example.

          • visor841 says:

            That’s as old as my current (integrated) graphics, but looks like an excellent option otherwise.

          • Premium User Badge

            Carra says:

            Upgrade from a 660 to a 1060 a few months ago. The 660 was still able to run all games though. Black Flag for example should run without problems at (close to) max settings.

        • Bent Wooden Spoon says:

          Unless AMD do things very differently, GPU driver support is far longer than the average PC’s lifespan. I’m still getting up to date drivers for my 5 year old GTX580 – same driver works over old card models going back ages.

          Without wanting to come across as rude, you don’t sound particularly experienced. People who probably have more than you are almost universally telling you to avoid this card, and I’m joining them. It might be worth your while to take heed.

          Buy second hand.

          • visor841 says:

            I’m running an A10-5800k, which has been fine for what I’m doing, and graphics support ended a little while ago. I’m not particularly experienced, just have my one $200 build, which is still ticking along just fine. I’m actually doing this on the advice of someone who has my same APU and got the 460, and is loving it.

          • The Bitcher III says:

            I don’t agree. 2nd user cards hold their price too well. I’ve looked hard and long for buddies, and rarely found a bargain. Best time is as a new model appears, but even then…. I sold my 970 for £185 on the day the 1080 shipped. Compared to a 470 – roughly equivalent performance, the same price, and has more going for it feature wise.

            Back OT, a 660ti has more DX11 oomph, but it’s not going to run modern AAA titles much better. Beyond 2 years, Nvidia don’t continue to optimise drivers as well as they might.

            You don’t lose performance, but you’ll never see an increase. Their drivers are generally title-specific card-specific optimisations. Contrarily, *all* AMD@s GCN cards have gained performance over the years with driver updates.

            The 460 is DX12/Vulkan ready, have display port – and comes with a warranty. It should have good x265 playback as well. Plus you can pair it with a cheap freesync monitor, which leaves you a reasonable upgrade path. As long as you don’t expect AAA games at more than 30fps, it’s a good buy at $70 right now, although I think 4GB is strongly preferable… and I have a feeling the 460 is about to be replaced Q1 2017.

          • MasterWuu says:

            I 2nd buying a used card. Or searching for great sales/deals , if you’re not in a rush, which happen more often than you think.
            My old 750ti went dead so I didn’t have the luxury to search slowly, but thankfully I found a good deal on a new Saphire r9 380 (under $125) . First time buying an AMD card but so far no complaints and runs most of my games very well.

      • Rich says:

        I bought a second hand R9 290 about two years ago. I’m never buying used again. Bloody thing burned out after 8 months. Luckily the R9 390 had come down in price by then, but it was still £180 down the bog.

    • Baines says:

      Those super low end cards generally aren’t worth the investment, even if you are broke.

      You’ll turn some previously unplayable games playable. Some of that isn’t even a raw power issue, but rather that devs tend to not even consider integrated graphics.

      But in a year or two, you’ll be back in the same situation. You’ll find increasingly more games have to be run at minimum settings, or see serious performance degradation.

      Sure, you are paying around half the price of an RX 480, but you are getting probably less than half the performance. I’d seriously consider trying to save an extra month or two for maybe an RX 480 or a 1060. You’ll get better performance now, and a bit more long term use, and can still do a ‘serious’ upgrade later when you win the lottery.

      • Baines says:

        Too late to edit: Or just look for a better cheap used card.

      • visor841 says:

        I’m fine with minimum settings. I’m fine turning down the resolution to play. I mean, XCOM 2 was still amazing, I’d just like XCOM 3, for example, to work, multiple second freezes and all. I figure now is a good time, with the new generation. Paying double or triple the price for a 480 isn’t something I’m interested in.

        • polecat says:

          I understand being on a budget but the false economy argument is completely right. If it can’t play DOOM reasonably that is a red flag – my 960 (which would have been considered mid-low range when I bought it about 18 months ago) can max it out and still smooth. Buy one of those second hand for, what, $20 more? And you’ll have something that can play current games an many of those to come, rather than struggling with current stock leaving you wanting an upgrade as soon as you’ve bought it.

      • Horg says:

        I’ve been a budget card buyer for a while now (about to change, woo money) and this doesn’t tally with my experience. You would be correct if you had said ”stock versions” aren’t value, but the 3rd party factory overclocked efforts can add great performance to cost ratio.

        I’m still using an R9 270X Devil from a few years back. Currently it runs Witcher 3 and Total Warhammer as my most demanding games with a smooth 40-60 FPS on high / ultra (minimum AA / SSAO / Tesselation). Enough to make the games look good and play well, not perfectly, but well enough to be enjoyable.

        When I bought that card it was becasue I literally couldn’t afford anything more expensive. Now i’m shopping for a replacement becasue I can afford it, not becasue it particularly needs to go. I could realistically get another year or two out of it. The important take away from this is that buying a higher end card that might last 5 or more years if you wanted wasn’t possible, and the 3rd party budget option has been worthwhile. These cards do have their niche, just avoid the stock versions and wait for better value in the market.

        • wodin says:

          I have the 270…and same as you have no issue really with it..just know it’s time for an upgrade next year:)

    • DaftPunk says:

      You never heard of used things? You can get 7900 series card for 100 euros,and it can run BF1 on max settings. Same with GTX 760!!

      • ooshp says:

        I’m still on a Sapphire 7950 OC, fired up my Vive while waiting for my new 1080 to arrive and guess what? Despite Valve’s warning of NOT READY FOR VR, the 7950 has taken to it like an old sheepdog desperate to prove it’s not ready for the shotgun. All the launch titles are perfectly playable. Still runs flat games in 1440 quite happily, the one exception being Dishonored 2 which had to go down to 1080p.

        Very, very impressed with the 7950 and would highly recommend the purchase if you find a cheap one.

        The card is also more than 4 years old, I think that’s the longest I’ve owned one since I was a student.

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      I’m running an an R9 290 from a couple of years ago, at that will quite happily play Witcher 3 at 1080 with high settings in everything (as far as I remember) and they’re about £150 on ebay.
      So yeah, ignore the RX460, pick up a faster second hand card.

    • Romo_Malo_809 says:

      This was a bad review of a GPU. Where are the real world numbers or the synthetic test. As a broke college student who built a computer recently with an rx460 2gb card I can tell you this review is not a valid one. For under $100 I’m able to run most games @1080p with medium to high settings at over 30 fps. I’m not saying that this is the card for an enthusiast but it will get the job done. If you can find a good deal on a more powerful card I would recommend that instead but for budget gaming this is the card for the masses.

  4. Lukasz says:

    Those cards are upgrade from integrated chips.

    I play on my laptop and my i5 can’t handle wasteland 2 or black mesa. I must use my 750m to play those games.

    And that’s the purpose of those cards. Building really cheap computer but still capable of handling games. I played witcher 3 batman Arkham or xcom. Not maxed not at full HD but at payable rate.

    Expecting game to run at ultra is silly.

  5. Premium User Badge

    james.hancox says:

    Weird that you saw such bad performance in Doom. Tech Report saw >60fps in their test: link to techreport.com I wonder if it’s the extra 2GB making all that difference? Or maybe it isn’t playing well with something else in your system? Either way, sounds like a pretty miserable experience.

    • Jeremy Laird says:

      Well, they describe their settings as a mix of ‘low and medium’, plus there’s the extra 2GB. So there are a lot of variables involved.

      • PseudoKnight says:

        It’s a low end card. Why wouldn’t they set their settings to low-to-medium on one of the latest graphical powerhouses and compare it to other similarly priced cards? The review above reads like “$110 cards are crap” and says almost nothing meaningful about the 460 in context. It says that the second-hand market is recommended instead for this price range, which is helpful, except it doesn’t do a comparison to the second hand market card at this price range!

  6. Baines says:

    On the other hand, the third most popular GPU on Steam is Nvidia’s old budget board, the GeForce 750 Ti.

    The most interesting bit is that the 750 Ti’s percentage has gone up every month.

    More worrying for AMD’s 460 would be the other bits of information from that Steam chart. (If we were to actually take any of it as seriously relevant information.) After all, while the third place 750 Ti implies people are willing to settle for budget solutions, the fourth place Intel HD Graphics 4000 implies people are almost as willing to settle for no solution at all.

    Even worse for AMD is that AMD’s first card only appears in the 19th place. The AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series comes after *five* separate Intel entries, and is directly below the four year old GeForce GT 630. That implies that not only is the general Steam community not interested in cutting edge graphics cards, they aren’t particularly interested in AMD either.

  7. Hyena Grin says:

    Aren’t a lot of these bargain releases meant to be run in SLI?

    The real question is always ‘are two of these cards more cost-effective than buying a card that costs more than the two cheap ones together?’

    So I’d be curious to see what happens when you run them in SLI. It’s probably not a huge shocker to anyone that it’s not a great piece of hardware on its own. You’re just never going to get great performance out of a card that costs a third of its competition. But if you can spend 2/3’s as much and get similar performance, hey maybe that’s worth doing.

    I’m not particularly well-versed in the GPU market these days – but I’m just sayin’.

    • Sakkura says:

      No. And in fact they usually don’t support SLI at all.

      AMD is less restrictive, but there are still the usual downsides of multi-GPU. It’s only potentially worth it higher up the GPU hierarchy.

      • Silent_Thunder says:

        Don’t forget that SLI just doesn’t play nice with a lot of games no matter what you do.

  8. Premium User Badge

    Nauallis says:

    I’m mostly surprised at that “Other” category, with a whopping 13.94% (11-16) of all graphics cards on machines running Steam not being from NVIDIA, ATI, or Intel. Until this article, I’d never heard of any other GPU manufacturers or product lines. I’m guessing these are workstation and server GPUs.

    • Pizzzahut says:

      I wonder if the really old AMD cards are classified as ATi (and thus ‘other’).

      • Premium User Badge

        Nauallis says:

        Did you even bother looking at the link? The data is presented as ATI as the manufacturer for the cards that were ATI, and AMD for cards manufactured after acquiring ATI.

        The other category very well could be cards of common manufacture that are more than ten or twelve years old, but is just as likely thin clients, workstations, and dedicated network servers, by manufacturers that are not AMD/ATI, NVIDIA, or Intel.

  9. Grimmtooth says:

    That is so weird. I have had zero problems with ATI installs from the Rage Pro days onward, across multiple boards from multiple manufacturers, with one exception (which turned out to be a motherboard issue). Granted, I insist lately on Gigabyte mobos (for reasons) and either Sapphire or Gigabyte vid cards (for reasons), but just how big of a difference does that make? I’d be astounded if everyone else was adept at picking the crappiest mobos and vid cards around, especially professional gaming bloggers.

    None of this is to say the 460 is any good. I don’t have one, and maybe that’s a good thing. :)

  10. Whelp says:

    Yeah. Get a 470 instead if you’re on a budget. That one’s actually good.

    I got myself a 480 recently for (early) xmas. Great card as well.

  11. dystome says:

    Just to answer the caption question there, the point of Doom is to charge around frantically murdering things so fast your brain can barely keep up with the bloodthirsty glory of it all.

    But yeah, an nVidia 950 manages that at a solid 60 FPS on medium. Bit sad that a late-2016 card can’t manage the same.

  12. Eikenberry says:

    I recently upgraded from an Nvidia 560ti to a 1050ti (I think I spent around 130 US dollhairs total), and, well, I guess I’m happy with it. The 560 was starting to struggle with some of the later releases. Between the 1050 and another recent SSD upgrade, Total War: Warhammer and GTA5 run like butter.

    Caveat: i’m also one of those weird people that can’t tell the difference when FSAA/FXAA is on or off, so I usually turn it off to get the extra boost in performance so I can turn on more fluffy bits, like SSAO.

    The last time I had an ATI card was the Radeon 9800 back in 2003. It burned itself out (literally) trying to render Second Life at a decent pace. Its last gasp rendered on my screen as a bunch of exploding triangles everywhere.

  13. The Bitcher III says:

    AMD’s briefings suggest the 460 is aimed at MOBA/MMO players, and people happy with 1080p 30fps.
    Makes sense – the 1050ti is the bare minimum 1080p 60fps med-high card and costs 50% more. After a few software updates, turns out the 470 hits the 1080p high-ultra 60fps mark quite nicely, it’s well worth another 15-20%.

    The 480 is a bit OP for 1080 60fps in all but the worst optimised/most demanding games – the real win here is pairing it with a 1080p 144hz / 1440 60hz FREESYNC monitor.

    Similarly, a cheap freesync 1080p 60hz monitor would make the performance of the 460 much less painful.

    • TheDyingScotsman says:

      Bare minimum? Sorry but I game at 1080p 60fps just fine on max settings with most games (witcher 3, Doom, Fallout 4 etc) with a 960 4gb lol. A 1050 is pointless. If you’re going to upgrade you’d go for at least a 1070 (or a 1060 if you’re strapped for cash).

      • tormeh says:

        I played Witcher 3 on a 960 4GB and 1920*1200 screen. No way it got close to max with more than 20FPS. The 960 was enough for a stunning game, but it was neither max settings nor 60FPS.

      • donnychi says:

        Well, of course anyone who owns a GTX 960 shouldn’t be “upgrading to a GTX 1050 Ti as that wouldn’t be an upgrade at all, more of a “side-grade”. The replacement to the GTX 960 is the GTX 1060 3GB. The GTX 1060 6GB is more of a full tier up without breaking the $300 mark.

        In terms of current generation GPUs, he is right, the minimum for 1080p 60 FPS is going to be the 1050 Ti or the RX 470, with the 470 allowing for higher settings and filters.

  14. indociso says:

    It’d be interesting to see how much difference the extra 2GB would make. I had read that this can make a difference when playing at higher resolutions, as 2GB is sometimes not enough (I know not to believe everything I read on the internet!). It also seems a little unfair to compare the 2GB version of this to the 1050ti.

    I was looking at upgrading to the RX 460 4GB, but not sure it would be worth it. Maybe I should just ignore my wallet and listen to my head and go for the RX 470.

    • indociso says:

      Just realised it says 1050 in the article and not the ti. My mistake.

  15. kazriko says:

    Isn’t this card specifically designed for the subset of gamers who only play things like League of Legends, Overwatch, and other similarly low-end games? It’s simply not designed to play games like Doom.

    If you’re using Steam for gaming, the chances are the 460 isn’t for you.

    • TheDyingScotsman says:

      Using steam has very little to do with anything, certainly not a card’s performance. Not sure what you’re getting at here. There are plenty of games on GoG, Origin and Uplay that would suffer with this card. Platform is irrelevant

  16. Raoul Duke says:

    I know there are plenty of people doing it tough, but this is in territory where it would make a huge amount of sense to save another 50-100% of the purchase price. The gains for each additional dollar you spend in this range are huge.

    To me this sounds like it would be good for, e.g., running multiple screens and that type of thing, or maybe an HTPC if it’s quiet and lowish power use, but not for actual proper gaming.

  17. MasterWuu says:

    My old 750ti suddenly went dead during the summer so I didn’t have the luxury to search slowly, but thankfully I found a good deal on a new backplated Saphire r9 380 4gb (under $125) . First time buying an AMD card but so far no complaints and runs most of my games very well. My monitor’s only 1680×1050 but I can run most games maxed out with 40-60fps. Apparently AMD eats up more power but again had no issues/problems installing or using. The radeon game settings app isn’t that bad. Sets separate profiles for games like nvidia. just a lil different. And MIS afterburner also worked with this card.

  18. TheDyingScotsman says:

    “a tick or too” – I’m available for employment if you require a proof-reader.

    • Lim-Dul says:

      Never in the history of mankind, has any journalist made any spelling mistakes nor have any slipped by after proofreading.

      I’m totally with you on this one.

  19. TheDyingScotsman says:

    Sounds like a waste of money. Even on my modest 960 4gb (which overclocks like a dream btw) I can run Doom on ultra settings at 1080p and it never quavers. Constant 60fps

    • polecat says:

      Ditto. I think one of the important lessons in that is the card choice, but the other is that 2GB is now inadequate. I don’t think people look at memory enough with cards – there’s a tendency to just trust the model number. I sympathise given specifying a PC is complex enough, but it’s also no surprise when you consider the vast size of textures being processed at modern resolutions, even before the increase in standard effects in recent years.

    • inspiredhandle says:

      “Never quavers”

      Made me chuckle. Am adopting this into my vocabulary.

      • dystome says:

        Also serves as an excellent pub snack policy.

        • inspiredhandle says:

          Nice. Or perhaps a piece of antiquated musical composition advice?

          Nah. Yours was better.

    • vatrak says:

      You can do the same on the RX 460.
      link to i.imgur.com

      Either the author of this article is doing that on purpose and is dishonest, or he’s just incompetent.

      And saying the RX 460 4GB at $120 is a bad buy and then saying the GTX 960 4GB at $400 is better buy when it’s a 10Fps increase for $300… cmon dude…

  20. Vesperan says:

    Breaking news: a low end card with only 2GB memory struggles to run high end games at high detail levels.

    Don’t get me wrong: I would never by this card. If AMD made a full version with no stream processors disabled it would no doubt put in a better showing, but they didn’t. Instead they are serving up a purposefully crippled card – the 460s are the leftovers that Apple doesn’t need for their 15” MacBook Pros. And this chip appears to have been built with Apple in mind – AMD even reduced the height of the chip (and who the hell brags about that?).

    This said, the article is bizarre. It may as well be complaining that a motor scooter can’t tow a caravan.

    There are plenty of games this graphics card can play comfortably. But not the likes of Doom, Shadow of Mordor, Total War: Attila or Witcher 3 at anything close to high detail levels.

    • wackazoa says:

      I will say that I am always surprised how reviewers set up the games list for these type of cards. I mean I guess I understand, to have everything even enough so people can compare the 460/1050 to a 1070 etc. if they want too. But the problem is you cant, or shouldnt maybe, compare them. A ultra budget card targeting Asia and E-sports wont ever play the same as a High end mainstream card that will play AAA games with ease. I do wish, not only this site but loads of others, would view these ultra budget cards under different guidelines than mainstream cards.

      Truth is, go look at the steam survey he listed. The 4th & 5th most used graphics are Intel integrated. There is clearly a market of games that this card would be fit for.

    • vatrak says:

      “There are plenty of games this graphics card can play comfortably. But not the likes of Doom, Shadow of Mordor, Total War: Attila or Witcher 3 at anything close to high detail levels.”

      You can play all of those games with a RX 460, just not at ultra settings. Since when do people fucking expect a low-end card to play games at Ultra?!

      This card will play all of the games you mentionned just fine at medium settings. No idea wtf the author of this article is doing.

      Here you go if you want to see a non shit review of the card.
      link to hardwareunboxed.com

  21. pewpew91 says:

    The article is biased. Owner of a 750ti, I can tell I can play a lot of games with 60 fps, and quite everything at 30fps. I can understand that for a elitist 30 fps is like putting acid in your eyes, but honestly in the witcher 3 I enjoyed the game. About the “the games must be played only at maximum settings otherwise is a waste of time, read a book instead”….I totally agree about reading a good book, but I can already told you to prepare a lot of money if you want to 60 fps solid max settings in FHD, since the only cards my friends told me can do that are 1080 and 980ti. Just a note:are the perforce for 1080p? Seems strange I can do a lot better than that with a 750ti with a lot of games. Beside this card is not intended for those games. Next time I suggest to try titanfall 2, overwatch (max setting with 60 fps for me, I immagine at least 80 for a 460), bf4 and a moba then write about this card, since this card is intended for those games.

    • inspiredhandle says:

      I can still max out everything at 1080p, 60fps with a GTX 970. Don’t know where you’re getting your information, but you certainly don’t need a 980ti for this. That’s insane.

  22. 2ds says:

    I’ve actually logged in for the first time in years to respond to what I’m on the verge of calling a hateful review.

    I don’t know what you think this card is supposed to be but I recently upgraded from my 7770 1gb to the rx460 2gb and I’m very happy with the performance so far.

    You’re talking about graphics cards that are designed to run on the 75w supplied by the PCI-E bus without external power connectors. Yes it’s not the best value for money but it is hitting a certain target.

    Civilization 6 runs very smoothly @ 1440p, I’ve had what I consider quite acceptable performance with DX:MD @ 1440p . Things like the Witness and Transport fever run very well. I’m just not sure what you expected? It’s +50% of the performance of my 7770 in the same power envelope.

    Saying go outside and read a book is too close in tone to people with a bad attitude telling you to uninstall the game and beneath the standard I expect from this site.

    I will admit that the card was not without its teething problems, I did need to update the BIOS and it certainly needed the more recent driver releases (also I think a Windows 10 update caused some of the issues because they weren’t there in the beginning) but its quite solid now.

    With all the things you said, I wonder if your review sample is faulty, did you go back to the manufacturer to try and confirm you didn’t have a faulty unit? Did you try any other cards or did you just shitpost?

    • inspiredhandle says:

      It depends on what fps and graphics settings you find quite acceptable. For most it would probably be 40-60 using medium to high settings (on a 1080 monitor). Going from an older 1GB card to a newer 2GB card would no doubt be a significant improvement, but it seems you have a different yardstick for acceptable performance from a card than most. Tech reviews tend to be biased to the upper side of graphical fidelity and so, review according to those higher standards. I personally can’t go back to lower settings and sub 60ish frame rates now that I have experienced a better card. I have locked myself into a higher expectation, and that’s a pain in the arse for me.

      I wouldn’t take it as a personal attack or anything. To me this review seems fair. The card is not value for money for most, it doesn’t mean it’s not the right card for some.

      • 2ds says:

        But the review isn’t fair, it’s retarded to benchmark an entry level card and complain that it isn’t fast enough. I actually did some in game benchmarks with mine just now (all medium settings and 1080p): civ6: avg 50+FPS Street Fighter IV avg 60+ FPS DX:MD avg 34FPS.

        The card is stretching on DX when the scene gets complicated but it’s still playable and it’s working well on other things that I would expect it to work well on. This is basically everything I expect from a card at this price point and in this power envelope.

        Then saying it’s slow because you can spend 5 times as much to get something faster is just dumb.

        The worst part is that there is a real story about this card here and that is that the BIOS’s that the manufactures released it with are not stable and need to be updated and the drivers also had issues for the first six months but only just recently the card is an acceptable purchase in that price/power range, the question then becomes do you get this or the 1050. at one of my local stores I’m seeing $189 vs $165. is the money worth it? is it worth getting 4gb?

        There is a story here but it’s not the OPs

    • Foobario says:

      I think the author’s goal was to shitpost before he even removed the card from the box.

      To insure he spoke to his audience, he “tested” an entry level card on games that strain cards three times the price.

      This card is intended to be one step up from integrated graphics. To give those that enjoy E league games a chance to run them over 100 fps on their 60hz monitors.

      Judging this card on Witcher 3 or any other memory hogging game is moronic at best, biased at worst.

      • Premium User Badge

        particlese says:

        Judging by Jeremy’s past hardware reviews, I rather suspect he wasn’t intending to give the card a bad review when he got the card. To the contrary, as he said, he went in with open but high-ish expectations. Given that statement and his subsequent experience, the “shitpost” here seems emotionally justified, if a bit less helpful to me than his usual reviews because of the goals and expectations it was based on.

        To balance Jeremy’s anecdote* with my own: My sister got a slightly overclocked 4GB 460 on my recommendation since the heaviest graphics load she’s interested in is Skyrim with a little modding, and she’s loving it. I also recommended some sort of Nvidia 1050 as an alternative and gave caveats for both options, but this was the route we went in the end. She has no interest in hi-fi NuDoom. On the other hand, she did end up with a mostly clean OS and driver install after some shenanigans which were everything to do with Windows 7’s age and MS’s weirdness and nothing to do with the card, so she has that advantage over Jeremy’s experience. My own experience driver-wise is that I’ve been dirty installing high/high-ish end (9800, HD 4870, HD 5850, R9 390) ATI/AMD cards and drivers for years without any memorable problems except minute-long black screens here and there with Windows 10 updates.

        *Note that this is not meant to be derogatory. I come to RPS for subjective reviews which I interpret subjectively.

        Sorry if I’ve wandered off-topic from your original post. Conscientious phone-posting is a royal pain with this many comments present…

  23. KenTWOu says:

    Where I live RX460 4Gb without 6 pin power connector costs as mush as 750ti 2Gb, so RX460 was a no-brainer to me. I bought one for some kind of media PC and I’m really happy with it. I even managed to find the game which eats more than 3 Gb of video memory according to MSI Afterburner. But it’s a low-end card, so the article was rather pointless anyway. You should write something about new Crimson ReLive driver package and Radeon Chill feature instead.

  24. Jetsetlemming says:

    I bought one of these because, at the time, the gtx 1050s were still out of stock or scalped on Amazon. I had a horrible experience with it, until I tried fully cleaning and then reinstalling the drivers. After that, it ran just fine… but I had already ordered a replacement gtx 1050ti that had come into stock. Comparing the rx460 working as intended to the gtx 1050ti (4GB models of both), the difference in performance was about 10-15 fps in most games on the same settings. Pretty big, but not as enormous as the author experienced. More significant was the software: Even after the failed shitty install, the AMD driver suite was laggy, opaque, and crash-prone.

    The AMD card was also enormous, pressing uncomfortably against the ATX power connection to my motherboard, while the gtx 1050 ti is mini-sized and doesn’t worryingly press against anything, thankfully.

  25. Villagkouras says:

    It seems very odd that you have this kind of performance.

    I play DOOM in Medium/High settings at around 50fps and Shadow of Mordor with High settings at 50-60fps (1080p both of them) with my R7 260X 2gb edition, which is far worse than the card you review.

  26. KingFunk says:

    I recently got a 1050ti and am very happy with it. But then I did upgrade from a 4870 512mb… To be fair, that was a good card and I could still play Skyrim at 1080p with fairly high settings. However, the 1050ti makes everything lovely by comparison. I’m also probably saving a bit of cash on my electricity bill! Yet to try it on anything new since I have a significant backlog but I’m impressed by what I can get using DSR on older games. FWIW my CPU is an Intel 2 Quad Core Q9450 clocked up to a Q9650 because I can’t be bothered swapping it out. Old, but still going strong…

  27. Voqar says:

    Seems to me that ever since AMD got heavily involved in consoles that their PC products have slipped considerably. Such is the way of consoles and their detrimental affect on PC.

    So while they’re successful and can tout numbers, their products aren’t really keeping up like they used to.

    Guess we’ll see with whatever they bring out next but I’m doubting it’ll be anything remarkable.

  28. the poison king says:

    I wish Rock Paper Shotgun would stop doing these sorts of hardware reviews.

    The statement that “Unfortunately, that’s not entirely an unusual experience when it comes to firing up AMD boards for the first time” is not based on any quantifiable evidence. I can understand saying that you had this problem, personally, and it worsened your experience of the video card. But it’s a big, unsupported leap to jump from that to claiming it’s a broadly common issue with AMD cards.

    As for performance…I don’t know what happened there. You didn’t quantify what you saw. What is jerky? 10FPS? 20FPS? 30FPS? How does this level of performance compare to other affordable video cards? Is this the performance AMD says that it should get? Worse? Better? There’s not enough information to go on.

    Rock Paper Shotgun does some fantastic reporting on games. When it comes to hardware, though, the standards seem to go out the window. I hope RPS considers being more rigorous in the future, or if that’s not possible, simply stops doing hardware reviews.

    • The Bitcher III says:

      Have to agree. This reads like the reviewer isn’t much keener than us.

      It’s an odd one, because, one the one hand and unlike games, there are ways to objectively quantify performance, even if the element of choice in which tests to run doesn’t lead to an ‘objective’ verdict. And I hate that we always get the same benchmarks that show the same patterns of relative performance from game to game – 5 DX11 AAA titles, 2 DX12 versions from them, plus Ashes Of The Singularity as a token ‘other’ game. (wither Rome II, a flight-sim etc) Plus, I think there may be something to be said for the reviewers impression of how it performs in play.

      But this is too far. The throwaway comment about AMD is just rubbish – speaking as someone who has had 3 Nvidia cards in a row, but spends too much time reading and talking to people about hardware, it just doesn’t ring true. Nvidia, on the other hand, left many 10×0 users with a driver that was running at latencies 100s of times higher than is desirable. This was left to rot for several months. They fixed that, then the drivers started downclocking a bunch of £700 cards to a performance level beneath that of the 460. That’s only just been fixed, but the drivers are still not performing well. Geforce Experience is horrid, invasive. The new AMD suite looks fantastic – the recorder has less of a performance impact than Nvidia’s, and plenty of users are reporting better in game performance from their cards, which are also running cooler and using less power.

      The only controversy to hit AMD was a bit of drama over the RX480’s power draw – it was patched immediately. Then a month or two later we saw mass recalls on EVGA’s GTX1080 cards because they were palpably unsafe VRM designs (A sorry saga for a decent company).

      Anyway. I do expect better, perhaps you ought to dig out someone who can right brief, no-nonsense reviews of this kit.

      I.F. and The Flare Path make good use of specialist writers – I really value both columns – maybe hardware does to.

  29. Ejia says:

    Well. I see someone’s found their videocard counterpart to John’s Myst.

  30. The Bitcher III says:

    One more note: The 750ti is hugely popular with mmo/moba/starcraft players in the far east – because it’s knocked out for a few bucjks by any number of tiny electronic assembly factories (the sort of brands you find on amazon selling LED strips). They’re sometimes seen on Ebay for around £40 (new).

  31. SuziQ says:

    Here are some actual benchmarks, scroll to the bottom.

    link to computerbase.de

    Two things to take away in my opinion:

    – on a 2GB AMD card you absolutely have to turn down texture settings, probably to low more often than medium.

    – the 4GB version for just 10 bucks more is really decent for the price point and should play most games just fine at medium settings (those benchmarks are at Ultra I believe).

  32. GTX_Mike says:

    Not only is this review filled with false information, but its clear that the author has let personal emotions dilute the actual review itself. This website is supposed to be for unbiased, informative articles, whereas this review is more fit for a teenagers tumblr blog. I sincerely hope that in future articles Mr. Laird will showcase more professionalism for the sake of both the readers, and the website as a whole.

  33. Shadywack says:

    I’m really sorry if this offends the author, but this is a really terrible piece. The technical issues are the author’s and very likely not with the card or the software. TL;DR it’s crap is also pretty canard advice here. It’s like he’s pissed that a $100 card didn’t perform like a $400 card so it’s obviously junk, even though it’s targeted at obvious entry level performance. Given all the issues with the statements made in this article, credibility is down the drain. If the author had said something like “compared to documented benchmarks elsewhere the 1050 is better/worse because _________” it wouldn’t call into question the basic credibility of the whole piece. I have no evidence for this, but the way this review is written I can reasonably expect that this guy is cozy with someone at nVidia. I don’t say that as an AMD fanboy either, the last 4 graphics cards I’ve used were top end nVidia products. Brand loyalty is stupid though, and the whole reason I’ve been using nVidia products is for the sheer performance, as I’m not a price sensitive customer. Vega, however, looks very compelling and I’ve actually put off my cycle upgrade because I’ve wanted to see if it’s a top-end part. If it is, I will be only too happy to ditch nVidia like a bad habit. Author should really be more objective here as there are some glaring hints of bias.

    • Simplex says:

      Here’s a Polish test of GeForce 1050, titled “Radeon 460’s slayer/vanquisher”: link to pclab.pl
      According to the test, 460 is both more expensive AND slower than 1050 – that was one month ago, so unless 460 significantly dropped in price (and 1050 didn’t) then it’s still true.
      link to pclab.pl

      This is price/performance ratio, 460 is at the very bottom:
      link to pclab.pl

  34. ngj2016 says:

    Good lord you haven’t a **** clue what you are talking about.

    The disk error is YOUR error. I’ve never seen a reviewer so lazy and irresponsible to conflagrate hardware issues of his own making with the product he’s reviewing.

    The DOOM numbers are so far off from every single other reviewer you obviously screwed it up beyond recognition.

    AMD drivers have been better than Nvidia’s for some while now. And before you say it, I own both. 980Ti in my main gaming rig and 2x Fury X in my living room setup.

    GFE is slow, requires a sign-in and the entire driver package has had serious issues for over a year. The only way you could have come to these conclusions about the software is to have spent zero time bothering to research anything yourself. Do you still think Intel runs hot and slow because of the Pentium 4?

    Here’s a conclusion for you.

    “Just don’t review hardware, go read a decent book or three and save our time for reviews that aren’t a fraudulent laughingstock. Honestly, that would be better than wasting time creating this braindead diarrhea you hilariously call a “feature”. The other alternative is potentially any other review site, and we’ll be leaving for them shortly.”

  35. DixieLandBlues says:

    I normally enjoy RPS articles, but I have to agree with some of the other comment opinions. This reads like an opinion piece rather than a hardware review.

    -no details on the test system/s. Were both card installed in the same setup, or were they in different PC’s? What was the spec?

    -what settings were the games played at? 1080p certainly, but what textures, AA, vsync, etc? Any synthetic benchmarks? Were the games played the same way each time (for example, first fifteen minutes of the same level)?

    -what were the recorded frame-rates? Highest/lowest/averages?

    -power draw, acoustics? (admittedly these two are less of a concern for many gamers.)

    -why no comparison between the 2GB and 4GB models, given they are so close in price? 2GB was pushing it for running new games on everything high in 1080p, even 2 years ago.

    As far as the author’s anecdotal experiences with drivers et al, I’m not commenting either way. I’ve run both NVidia & AMD/ATi (and I work as a virtualisation specialist who has built a lot of machines as a sideline, and used to provide warranty support for a IT wholesaler back in Africa), and in truth I’ve seen both brands issue good and bad cards, and drivers go through good & bad patches.

    My current card is an AMD 7970 3GB (brought second hand, still runs everything I throw at it on full settings in 1080p :)), and the driver stability and update process hasn’t caused me any problems since installation, about 18 months.) I’m not discrediting the author’s own hands-on, but I’m unwilling to extrapolate that into an industry wide scenario.

    My only advice for anyone looking for a card is to ignore brands & hype. Look at what is available when you want to build, research and compare your choices vs your budget & desires, and use hard figures and test results from multiple sources to help your choice.

    Second-hand kit can also offer good deals, but make sure you have some form of returns (PayPal buyer protection, etc) in case the kit is not as described.

  36. Snowcaller says:

    i find my sweet spot with my budget 150-200 GBP.
    I had a succession of nividias, getting lucky with the GTX460 and i had a windfall and scored a GTX580, which was top notch for years.
    Now i’m using a 970 i got for pittance.
    I’d say if you want to run triple A FPS you’re gonna need to spend a little more but the 100 pound price point cards are fine for LOL or other Mobas or if you judiciously tweak your settings on more demanding games. I treat myself to a new GPU every couple of years. Some folks with partners and bairns can’t or young folk with no income but i’d advise for people to spend a little more.