Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire and XFX Radeon RX 460 compared

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    26,187
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1,406 times in 528 posts

    Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire and XFX Radeon RX 460 compared

    We pit them against each other.
    Read more.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    859
    Thanks
    142
    Thanked
    48 times in 44 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z97MX Gaming 5
      • CPU:
      • i5 4690K @stock, until I upgrade my graphics
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • Crucial MX500 512GB, 2TB storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic S12G-550
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E

    Re: Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire and XFX Radeon RX 460 compared

    Interesting to see the extra ram hindering the gigabyte card - maybe the 4GB is sucking up power that would otherwise go to the GPU?

  3. #3
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    14,186
    Thanks
    1,120
    Thanked
    2,036 times in 1,702 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • HP Pavilion
      • CPU:
      • A10 4600M
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR3-1600 SODIMM
      • Storage:
      • 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon HD7660G (IGP)
      • PSU:
      • Battery/HP 19v brick
      • Case:
      • HP Pavilion G6
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1366x768 laptop panel

    Re: Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire and XFX Radeon RX 460 compared

    Quote Originally Posted by Xlucine View Post
    Interesting to see the extra ram hindering the gigabyte card - maybe the 4GB is sucking up power that would otherwise go to the GPU?
    Hmmm, it's only really Tomb Raider where the 4GB version falls behind - everything else is within margin of error. That said, it's fairly well accepted that the RX 460 (and the reference RX 480, let's be honest) are essentially power-limited, and the 4GB Gigabyte draws more power than the 2GB, and Tomb Raider has the lowest frame rates of all the games, suggesting it's pushing the cards hardest, which would be where a power limit would hit hardest.

    In other words; yeah, that's probably it

  4. #4
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    7,781
    Thanks
    300
    Thanked
    738 times in 638 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • M5A-97 EVO R2.0
      • CPU:
      • FX-8350
      • Memory:
      • 16GB ECC 1333
      • Storage:
      • 660GB Linux, 500GB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Nitro R9 380 4GB
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 24 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire and XFX Radeon RX 460 compared

    I would have thought with the 460 you just go for the cheapest or possibly quietest, you don't want to pay a lot when the 470 is so very much faster.

  5. #5
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    14,186
    Thanks
    1,120
    Thanked
    2,036 times in 1,702 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • HP Pavilion
      • CPU:
      • A10 4600M
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR3-1600 SODIMM
      • Storage:
      • 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon HD7660G (IGP)
      • PSU:
      • Battery/HP 19v brick
      • Case:
      • HP Pavilion G6
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1366x768 laptop panel

    Re: Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire and XFX Radeon RX 460 compared

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    I would have thought with the 460 you just go for the cheapest or possibly quietest ....
    Problem with going for the cheapest is hitting that 2GB barrier in certain games - which is demonstrated beautifully by the Doom results. That said, it'd be interesting to know if that was an artefact of playing with Ultra settings - would you see the same delta at High?

    As to the power limit, you can use Wattman to tweak the voltages in the highest power states down slightly which both reduces power consumption and allows the card to maintain its boost clock. So maybe just going for the cheapest card and then playing with the settings is the way to go...

  6. #6
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    7,781
    Thanks
    300
    Thanked
    738 times in 638 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • M5A-97 EVO R2.0
      • CPU:
      • FX-8350
      • Memory:
      • 16GB ECC 1333
      • Storage:
      • 660GB Linux, 500GB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Nitro R9 380 4GB
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 24 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire and XFX Radeon RX 460 compared

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    That said, it'd be interesting to know if that was an artefact of playing with Ultra settings - would you see the same delta at High?
    I'm pretty sure I played Doom at 1440p on a 2GB R9 285 with no issues. I did have the advantage of Freesync, and wasn't stupid enough to play on ultra.

    Ultra settings are supposed to require very high end kit to play, traditionally in Doom that means hardware that doesn't even exist when the game is released. So yeah, any benchmarks for mainstream cards should be done on sane settings not Ultra.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    859
    Thanks
    142
    Thanked
    48 times in 44 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z97MX Gaming 5
      • CPU:
      • i5 4690K @stock, until I upgrade my graphics
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • Crucial MX500 512GB, 2TB storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic S12G-550
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E

    Re: Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire and XFX Radeon RX 460 compared

    The 2GB card is still getting 39fps at ultra, which is respectable - totally playable, especially with freesync

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    162
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    15 times in 9 posts
    • nitro912gr's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS Sabretooth 990FX R2.0
      • CPU:
      • Phenom II x6 1090T
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB Kingstone Beast 2133Mhz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung Evo 850 250GB, 2x WD Caviar Black 640GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX Radeon 7850 DD 1GB
      • PSU:
      • XFX ProSeries 450W Core Edition
      • Case:
      • CoolerMaster N300
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2313HM

    Re: Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire and XFX Radeon RX 460 compared

    Very interesting, but I could love to see where those cards stand with older ones.
    I feel that my 7850 1GB sure is worst, but does it really worth it for me to go for a 460?
    I guess many people will have older cards and keep an eye for the tech to be good enough to worth the upgrade.

  9. #9
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire and XFX Radeon RX 460 compared

    Looking at getting a card around the £100 mark to replace my Radeon 6850. I haven't played any games for about a year but found the 6850 adequate for BF4 and XCOM. Be interesting to see how much better games look with an RX 460!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •