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

by Tarinder Sandhu on 27 January 2017, 15:30

Tags: AMD (NYSE:AMD), ASUSTeK (TPE:2357), Gigabyte (TPE:2376), Sapphire, XFX (HKG:1079)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qaddmn

Add to My Vault: x

Conclusion

Through this evaluation we have ascertained that the Radeon RX 460 is a competent performer at a full-HD resolution common on mainstream gaming PCs. Starting at around £90 and rising to £125-plus for models equipped with 4GB of onboard memory, there's plenty of choice out there.

An examination of four partner cards illuminates a few key benefits and detractions. The Gigabyte OC 2GB variant is the cheapest on test but doesn't maintain its peak core speed in our benchmarks. It does, however, have the benefit of not requiring additional juice. The 4GB model is something of a halfway house, matching the inconsistent core clock of its sibling yet not standing out in any meaningful way.

The XFX card does most things well - a decent core clock, quiet running, competitive pricing and solid overclocking potential - but is bigger than we'd like for a card of this ilk. If you have the room and therefore don't mind the form factor, it's a reasonable bet.

We're more keen on the Sapphire Nitro. It benchmarks well, isn't quite as big as the XFX and subjectively looks better. We'd hope to see keener pricing, but do appreciate that AMD charges partners a premium for using the RX 460 GPU with a 4GB framebuffer.

The dearest and arguably best of the bunch is the Asus Strix. Asus charges £20-£25 more than anyone else, which is telling in a hotly-contested market, and it appeals to those of you who are already converts and customers of the Aura RGB lighting system.

If it was our money and RX 460 was the card for us, the Sapphire Nitro OC would get the nod, though the green team has plenty of goodness in the form of the GTX 1050.

A key takeaway here is that you don't have to spend a lot to achieve a good games-playing experience. We'll seek to replicate the experience with the next level up, so Core i5 powering the RX 470/480 and GTX 1060.

The AMD Radeon RX 460 GPUs are available from Scan Computers.

Sapphire RX 460 OC 2GB

Sapphire RX 460 4GB

Gigabyte RX 460 OC 2GB

Gigabyte RX 460 OC 4GB

Asus RX 460 Dual OC 2GB

Asus RX 460 ROG Strix 4GB

XFX RX 460 DD 2GB

XFX RX 460 Core 4GB

PowerColor RX 460 Red Dragon 2GB

PowerColor RX 460 Red Dragon 4GB

MSI RX 460 OC 2GB



HEXUS Forums :: 8 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Interesting to see the extra ram hindering the gigabyte card - maybe the 4GB is sucking up power that would otherwise go to the GPU?
Xlucine
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 ;)
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.
DanceswithUnix
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…
scaryjim
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.