Review: ASUS Radeon RX 460 STRIX Gaming

I'm not sure I'd say this card is underpowered. It wouldn't surprise me if this, like many X60 range cards, are meant to be compatible with the IGPs of APUs. If the next gen APUs are based on the 460 and can be crossfired, that's actually some pretty significant performance.

Personally, I'm not sure if recommending the 4GB models, gaming or otherwise, is the right approach. I haven't seen benchmarks of 2GB models but it wouldn't surprise me if that performs roughly the same. This GPU clearly wasn't intended for 1080p gaming, so if you're at 720p or lower I think a 2GB model is plenty sufficient.

 

Why no idle power consumption test?

Nice card but pretty expensive in EU.

 

i have friend specifically playing blade and soul with a core 2 duo 5200 and a gt 9500 ... yes 9500 on lowest details about 20 fps he was asking me how he can cheeply play on it decently my suggestion was to wait for a card like 460 for 90-100 euros he will see huge improuvement also for his cpu anything higher will be a waste ...but at this price .. i can not recomend the card anymore at all ...should i steer him to a used 280 or something ?


p.s. : obviously he can not afford a new pc right now

 

Doing incremental upgrades are the most cost effective in the short term, but long term he may regret it. A 280 will likely be bottlenecked by his current PC's CPU or PCIe bandwidth, and by the time he replaces the rest of his system, the 280 might be underwhelming. Personally, I think getting an APU would be the best choice. If he keeps his current tower, PSU, and disk drives, a new APU + mobo + RAM wouldn't be that expensive but would keep him going for a while. If GPU performance starts to lag, get a GPU compatible with his IGP to crossfire with it.

 

oh no crossfire for him he is not good with pc's at all and i am the one always troubleshooting for him ...
thing is his budget is strictly 100 euros and bellow and i think the p33 chipset he has it is pcie gen 2 i am not sure he can get better perfomance with apu+motherboard+ram than changing his card well with max100 euros that is

 

None of them :nerd:.

Agreed on the pricing, Hilbert. Past $120 this card starts looking a lot less attractive.

 

Why is it always the low post count guys that want to buck the system?

 

Large gap between the 460 and 470/ I wonder if there will be a 465 to make up for the performance gap?

 

I've always thought that reviews should exist to show up the flaws of a card more than its strengths.

People are going to buy hardware based on these reviews, unless you are making money from the sales of these cards i find it very dubious why someone would want cherry picked games/resolutions/settings.

 

Expect a RX465 with 1280/1536 shader processors, 128bit bus and 90W TDP coming at Vega launch.

 

I'm in full agreement with Hilbert - the whole point of benching different cards is to compare apples to apples. Same games, same settings.

You know those graphs that show like 30 graphics cards going back multiple generations? That's only possible because he uses the same games with the same settings on the same testing rig. Otherwise we'd have what, a graph showing this card all by itself with LoL and DOTA at various quality settings? No thanks.

If you want your "esports" review, buy the card yourself, run some tests and start your own tech website. I come here for apples to apples comparisons (even if they're not pretty), not cherry picked, constantly changing results.

I do agree that 1440p was a waste of time - Hilbert's time that is. It took me all of 3 seconds to laugh at the score and move on. IMO this card is woefully inadequate for 2016, no matter what game you play. Majority of my time is spent playing Diablo 3, Skyrim and Civ 4, not exactly demanding games but I wouldn't ever consider this card for purchase. If it can't even pull 1080p with high settings it's a POS period. Maybe ok for a kid without a job or someone on a crazy tight budget, but an extra $150 buys you SO much more.

 

Boy you are thick-skulled. Every review website reviews in their own way.

With your logic you'll be b!tching at another site because they tested pacman with a titan X when it's clearly outside its intended target :stewpid:.

Don't like the review, go read another website's review.
There are options, so quit whining like a child, nobody owes you anything.

 

hahahaha^ I just spit on my screen laughing....you made my day with that one Agent/ thanks bro! .:banana:

 

You're both overshooting.

He isn't asking for a 1080 to get benched running LoL. He's asking for a $100 entry level card that AMD specifically says is targeting towards E-Sports to be tested on the largest E-Sports game.

On the other hand, Guru3D rarely, if ever, focuses on those types of games. There are plenty of other locations that will do those kinds of benchmarks. Given the scope of cards Hilbert reviews, the number of people he has doing benchmarks for him (none as far as I know) and his inability to clone himself (again, he can't, as far as I know) I don't think it's reasonable to expect him to have varying tests for each market segment.

If you're looking for benchmarks of CS/LoL/Dota/Overwatch there are plenty of other sites doing them. If you want to see how this card holds up against the battery of tests that Hilbert came up with (mostly featuring modern titles but some slightly older ones as well) then come here.

I personally prefer Hilbert's game line up -- because you can usually make reasonable assumptions on performance of lesser games from more demanding ones.

Also for the record I disagree with your assessment of competitive gaming. There is no way these companies would pour as much marketing as they do into competitive gaming if there wasn't some ROI. That's not to mention that CS:GO's population has nearly tripled in the past year. Yeah it may not be putting up GTA numbers, but it's getting people on the platform, which is a good thing.

 

Actually RIOT Games generated an estimated $1.6US Billion Revenue from League of Legends in the 2015 financial year. If wikipedia is to be trusted, the record breaking GTA V crossed the $1 Billion mark in revenue in a staggering 3 days, but took the following eight months before it generated its second billion.... aaaaand, those are console figures. You quote "60 million" sales (it's actually over 65 million now), but more than half of those sales were hit even before the XBOne & PS4 launch... let alone the PC launch. I don't know what the PC sales are, but they would be small a fraction of total sales... and total revenue.

If we limit things to PC gaming (which is all that's relevant for GPU launches like this), League of Legends generated significantly higher revenues than GTA V even on launch year, and it continues to do so year after year. You might not like those games and accuse players of being "addicts", but it's a hugely profitable industry.

Having said all that, I agree that it's utterly pointless to test e-sports titles on new GPUs. APUs/Onboard graphics its relevant, but not GPUs like this. If you want the answer to "is the RX460 fast enough for SC2, DOTA 2, CS:Go @ and LOL @ 1080P", here it is: YES, it's plenty fast enough... there, review done. Even a 7750 never drops below 60fps in DOTA II. LOL & CS:Go are even less demanding and SC2 (and sequels) are more CPU dependent than GPU when the going gets tough.

 

The condescending tone of Krux wasn't necessary, he/she has no manners what so ever.
Perhaps it's because AMD advertised these cards for e-sports so it'll be nice to see this card tested with such games new/old.

 

So the post office misplaced this package for 4 years? But it's a nice candidate for a quad crossfire review. Pretty please?

 

That is a false statement. 60fps in CSGO is not enough. You need 150 at least. And that is not because we feel special or "the human eye can see more than 60fps" or stuff like that. Simply because it works better, way better, faster, that's due to the engine. Also 144hz monitors. So yes we need reviews on those games. The games that are in the review, most of them are 60$ games, pretty much all of them were 60$ on release day. So basically we have roughly 15 games reviewed on the rx 460, yet the GPU itself costs as much as 3 of those games. How many of us will buy a GPU for that much money and spend $60 on a game every few weeks? Answer is a few or even less than a few. People who buy cheap cards buy them not because they will "do the job" but because they can't afford more. People like that tend to play f2p games.

 

Dude, you sound like a complete douchebag. Your opinions are old and outdated and it's just ignorant and dumb to post what you did. Seriously, get some standards for yourself.

This is actually even worse than your previous post. This is just completely, absurdly wrong on so many levels that I'm amazed you even typed it out.

Playercount for a "addict game" like LoL, I don't know why you even post something as dumb as "addict game", is above 60 million actives a month, the revenue for Riot is more than 1.5 billion dollars a year. Enough for them to be building their own Internet routes to cut down on pingtimes for their users. But I guess that doesn't matter. CS:GO and DOTA2 generate more than half a billion a year for Valve and have huge playercounts.

I don't know who you are to sit and say "these titles don't matter", obviously you don't play them and that makes you the centerpiece of attention for the entire world. I don't play them much at all either, that doesn't mean I don't know loads of people who do, and that I don't wish to have the knowledge of what might constitute a good system at the right price for these games.

Grow the hell up, dude. You sound like a spoiled child.