Impressed with RX 460 overall.

[Kanan]

I think RX 460 is only really fast in a few AMD-nice games like Resident Evil and Doom. Else it's only comparable to the 1050, but well, I guess thats okay. On top if the GPU is unlockable which is likely but NOT gueranteed like some people think, its 10% faster too.

 

[rruff]

You have that mistaken with 1050Ti, a regular 1050 is on par with 460.

Every other review I've seen puts the 1050 ahead. So I paged through all of the TPU 1050 tests. The 1050 was easily beating the 460 in most of games by a good margin, then I saw this:

Something wacky with how the system treats 2GB Nvidia cards in some games. This isn't true of other systems I know of.

 

[Kanan]

Every other review I've seen puts the 1050 ahead. So I paged through all of the TPU 1050 tests. The 1050 was easily beating the 460 in most of games by a good margin, then I saw this:

Something wacky with how the system treats 2GB Nvidia cards in some games. This isn't true of other systems I know of.

Nah, 2 GB just isn't enough for that game, the RX 460 has 4 GB.

 

[rruff]

Nah, 2 GB just isn't enough for that game, the RX 460 has 4 GB.

R9 380 has 2GB. This has happened before, though most of them were right after he updated to Windows 10. I thought it had gotten fixed, but apparently not. Haven't seen this kind of behavior in any other review.

 

[Kanan]

R9 380 has 2GB. This has happened before, though most of them were right after he updated to Windows 10. I thought it had gotten fixed, but apparently not. Haven't seen this kind of behavior in any other review.

Ah you were specifically talking about the TPU review then. Alright nvm. Now that you say it... I remember a particular TPU review that looked fishy, I guess thats it. Pretty rare though here.

 

[m&m's]

Only if you play old or the so-called "competitive" games with it, like CS:GO, Dota 2, LoL, etc.

A few games don't run well with 2 GB, whether it's a 470 or a 460 isn't important then. Generally I like the 1050 Ti best at that bracket, but I'd take the 460 if it's a lot cheaper and I don't need more performance.

You are going to find many games, at 1080p, that will easily eclipse 2GB...even without AA. That can cause issues.

https://www.hardwareunboxed.com/rx-460-4gb-vs-2gb-vram-benchmark-is-more-better/

They tested 16 games and only 1 game was affected. Other games either performed the same or both cards were giving so low FPS that you'll need to lower settings = lower VRAM usage. 95%+ of the time you'll be limited by the GPU before the 2GB VRAM.

The only reason to buy the 4GB version is if there's a difference of $15 or less. I wouldn't pay $30+.

 

[kn00tcn]

that you'll need to lower settings = lower VRAM usage. 95%+ of the time you'll be limited by the GPU before the 2GB VRAM.

what? textures barely affect performance so almost any gpu can put such a setting up... at which point you'd run out of vram so you have to 'suffer' with lower textures

the important thing is how well coded the game engine is to stream textures in & out so that it doesnt start thrashing

 

[hrp32]

I own it but I don't consider it a good card honestly!
And I don't regret buying the 4GB version.

Just take a look at screenshots below. Assassin's Creed Syndicate is using 3.5GB of vram! but I get 25fps most of the time and also my old CPU could be a bottleneck too.

I believe no one should get 2GB cards these days.

 

[m&m's]

what? textures barely affect performance so almost any gpu can put such a setting up... at which point you'd run out of vram so you have to 'suffer' with lower textures

the important thing is how well coded the game engine is to stream textures in & out so that it doesnt start thrashing

Why did you bring textures in the equation? It has no link to what I said. Doesn't matter if textures affect or not the performance, the RX 460 chip is too slow to run AAA titles on High-Ultra settings so whether it has 2GB or 4GB doesn't matter at that point so you'd have to lower the settings which would lower the VRAM usage which put the 2GB and the 4GB version even more on par with each other. A typical example:

On medium settings (which is what a RX 460 is capable of) the game only uses 2GB!

I own it but I don't consider it a good card honestly!
And I don't regret buying the 4GB version.

Just take a look at screenshots below. Assassin's Creed Syndicate is using 3.5GB of vram! but I get 25fps most of the time and also my old CPU could be a bottleneck too.

I believe no one should get 2GB cards these days.

You just corroborated what I'm saying, you have the 4GB version but you're only getting 25FPS because the chip is too slow! You think the 2GB would perform worse?

 

[Kanan]

https://www.hardwareunboxed.com/rx-460-4gb-vs-2gb-vram-benchmark-is-more-better/

They tested 16 games and only 1 game was affected. Other games either performed the same or both cards were giving so low FPS that you'll need to lower settings = lower VRAM usage. 95%+ of the time you'll be limited by the GPU before the 2GB VRAM.

The only reason to buy the 4GB version is if there's a difference of $15 or less. I wouldn't pay $30+.

Frame variance is all over the place on 2GB cards on some games like Assassins Creed Unity for example. This was tested a while ago by hardwareluxx.de with R9 380 and GTX 960 Gpus. So I'm still right with what I said. 4GB cards are much better even with slower GPUs. 2GB simply is something of the past now.

Google it if you want.

Ps. Post as many tables you want. Frame variance isn't listed there. Something you don't seem to know at all.

 

[m&m's]

Frame variance is all over the place on 2GB cards on some games like Assassins Creed Unity for example. This was tested a while ago by hardwareluxx.de with R9 380 and GTX 960 Gpus. So I'm still right with what I said. 4GB cards are much better even with slower GPUs. 2GB simply is something of the past now.

Google it if you want.

Ps. Post as many tables you want. Frame variance isn't listed there. Something you don't seem to know at all.

Frame variance is included with all 16 games. The 1% and 0.1% are the frame variance. You don't seem to know how to read a graph at all.

 

[hrp32]

Why did you bring textures in the equation? It has no link to what I said. Doesn't matter if textures affect or not the performance, the RX 460 chip is too slow to run AAA titles on High-Ultra settings so whether it has 2GB or 4GB doesn't matter at that point so you'd have to lower the settings which would lower the VRAM usage which put the 2GB and the 4GB version even more on par with each other. A typical example:

On medium settings (which is what a RX 460 is capable of) the game only uses 2GB!



You just corroborated what I'm saying, you have the 4GB version but you're only getting 25FPS because the chip is too slow! You think the 2GB would perform worse?

before I purchase this card I had the 1.5GB GTX 580 which it's performance was the same as RX 460.

I got 10fps even with everything set to lowest on my 1.5GB GTX 580! 2GB cards are no different.

Those people purchased 3GB GTX 580s back then for a reason. If I had the 3GB version I didn't have to upgrade to the RX 460.

I have no problem playing games on 30fps instead of 45fps but not being able to set the visual quality to at least medium preset is another story.

Nvidia has always skimped on vram. Some examples are GTX 580, 680, 780 and I think they did it on purpose for planned obsolescence.

 

[m&m's]

before I purchase this card I had the 1.5GB GTX 580 which it's performance was the same as RX 460.

I got 10fps even with everything set to lowest on my 1.5GB GTX 580! 2GB cards are no different.

Those people purchased 3GB GTX 580s back then for a reason. If I had the 3GB version I didn't have to upgrade to the RX 460.

Are you 100% sure it was caused by the VRAM and not by the NVidia drivers and/or the Fermi architecture? Are you 100% sure that the 3GB version performs better on this game?

The GTX 1050 with only 2GB performs better than the RX 460 4GB on Assassin's Creed Syndicate even though both cards are normally equal.

Drivers and architecture makes for a huge difference so if you have a link or something to prove that the GTX 580 3GB actually performs better than the 1.5GB on recent titles, I'd be pleased to see it.

 

[hrp32]

Are you 100% sure it was caused by the VRAM and not by the NVidia drivers and/or the Fermi architecture? Are you 100% sure that the 3GB version performs better on this game?

The GTX 1050 with only 2GB performs better than the RX 460 4GB on Assassin's Creed Syndicate even though both cards are normally equal.

Drivers and architecture makes for a huge difference so if you have a link or something to prove that the GTX 580 3GB actually performs better than the 1.5GB on recent titles, I'd be pleased to see it.

Yes I'm 100% sure. You are resisting to accept something which is obvious! Unfortunately I couldn't find GTX 580 3GB benchmarks for recent titles as they are so old now and I sold my card to get rid of it but I can guarantee that more vram can come in handy in some titles. of course not always but if the price difference is not that much then it's worth it.

I purchased the 4GB RX 460 for just $12 more. I believe it was a good decision.

 

[m&m's]

Yes I'm 100% sure. You are resisting to accept something which is obvious! Unfortunately I couldn't find GTX 580 3GB benchmarks for recent titles as they are so old now and I sold my card to get rid of it but I can guarantee that more vram can come in handy in some titles. of course not always but if the price difference is not that much then it's worth it.

I purchased the 4GB RX 460 for just $12 more. I believe it was a good decision.

You are making assumptions, you changed of GPU and got an increased in FPS, but nothing proves it's the 4GB of VRAM on the new card that made the difference and not the the chip itself or the drivers.
Someone owns a new car that has direct injection and is faster than his old car that had multi-point injection. Is the new car faster only because it has direct injection? No, there are multiple factors like engine displacement, transmission, naturally aspirated, turboed, etc.

That's why you need to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. In this case it's RX 460 2GB vs RX 460 4GB and GTX 580 1.5GB vs GTX 580 3GB. Comparing an RX 460 4GB to a GTX 580 1.5GB makes no sense if we want to know the effect of the VRAM only.

Yeah for $12 why not that's what I said in post#32.

 

[hrp32]

You are making assumptions, you changed of GPU and got an increased in FPS, but nothing proves it's the 4GB of VRAM on the new card that made the difference and not the the chip itself or the drivers.
Someone owns a new car that has direct injection and is faster than his old car that had multi-point injection. Is the new car faster only because it has direct injection? No, there are multiple factors like engine displacement, transmission, naturally aspirated, turboed, etc.

That's why you need to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. In this case it's RX 460 2GB vs RX 460 4GB and GTX 580 1.5GB vs GTX 580 3GB. Comparing an RX 460 4GB to a GTX 580 1.5GB makes no sense if we want to know the effect of the VRAM only.

Yeah for $12 why not that's what I said in post#32.

It's so clear as soon as you run out of 2GB of vram game engine uses system memory which is significantly slower than vram. Now it doesn't really matter the GPU is RX 460 or GTX 1080. Your GPU usage will fall and also your frame rate. You are limiting your GPU horse power waiting for the data to be transferred from and to system memory.

Of course drivers and architecture matter but believe me before those, using system memory as vram slows you down a lot more resulting a 10 - 15fps game experience.

And again if it was a driver issue I should have experience those low frame rates with other games as well no? I played a lot of other games on GTX 580 and they were playable but as soon as I exceeded 1.5GB limit I got below 15fps. No matter it was GTAV Farcy Assassin's Creeds or other titles.

 

[Vya Domus]

In this case it's RX 460 2GB vs RX 460 4GB and GTX 580 1.5GB vs GTX 580 3GB. Comparing an RX 460 4GB to a GTX 580 1.5GB makes no sense if we want to know the effect of the VRAM only.

True , but regardless of architecture if you match the settings it's not hard at all to determine whether you are VRAM limited or not.

 

[rruff]

It's so clear as soon as you run out of 2GB of vram game engine uses system memory which is significantly slower than vram.

Only time that happens is if the game engine is junk or the settings are too high.

It's budget card, lower your settings to favor decent fps, and all is good. It isn't hard to deal with. If performance isn't good enough for you it'd be better to spend the money on a faster card, not more vram. Unless the vram is $10 or less. Maybe not even that much.

Been over this with guys wanting spend $50 to upgrade laptop 1050s to 4GB, just because it's a little better sometimes, until you adjust your settings properly that is. If you care that much just get a better card. 2GB is fine on cards this weak. I know, I have a 950.

 

[hrp32]

Only time that happens is if the game engine is junk or the settings are too high.

It's budget card, lower your settings to favor decent fps, and all is good. It isn't hard to deal with.

I may want to trade some fps for a better visual quality. In some games 25-30 fps is just enough for me.
Besides, as I said before my GTX 580 couldn't even give me 10 fps in Assassin's Creeds Syndicate even with everything set to the lowest. And I'm certain this doesn't happen with 3GB 580s.

I'm currently using 3719MB of VRAM and getting 30fps. So of course the extra 2GB is not useless :

 

[rruff]

I'm currently using 3719MB of VRAM and getting 30fps. So of course the extra 2GB is not useless :

You actually can't go by that. The game will use more of the vram than it needs simply because it is there. It doesn't mean the card would be swapping if you only had 2GB.

It's the same with ram on your computer. If you've ever increased that you'll notice that apps park a lot more in ram just because.

 

[Kanan]

Frame variance is included with all 16 games. The 1% and 0.1% are the frame variance. You don't seem to know how to read a graph at all.

Yeah too bad you're just a trash talker:

https://www.computerbase.de/2015-12...e-gtx-960-fps-assassins-creed-unity-1920-1080

And this review is from 2015. The situation is even worse now for 2 GB cards.

Here google translate for their end word:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.computerbase.de/2015-12/2gb-4gb-gtx-960-r9-380-vram-test/3/&edit-text=&act=url

Pretty clear you lost this debate. As I said, only old games and simpler games like CS:GO/Dota2/LoL run well with 2 GB cards nowadays, for modern games, it's not recommended to buy a 2 GB card to play now.

 

[m&m's]

Yeah too bad you're just a trash talker:

https://www.computerbase.de/2015-12...e-gtx-960-fps-assassins-creed-unity-1920-1080

And this review is from 2015. The situation is even worse now for 2 GB cards.

Here google translate for their end word:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.computerbase.de/2015-12/2gb-4gb-gtx-960-r9-380-vram-test/3/&edit-text=&act=url

Pretty clear you lost this debate. As I said, only old games and simpler games like CS:GO/Dota2/LoL run well with 2 GB cards nowadays, for modern games, it's not recommended to buy a 2 GB card to play them.

You're forgetting the main point! The RX 460 is a slow chip. Slower by 22% than the R9 380 and slower by 12% than the GTX 960. From the review you posted, the guy mentions that it is a lot less noticeable with the GTX 960 and he plays with 20 to 40FPS which means that the settings are too high. He should lower them until he gets a stable 60FPS with the 4GB cards and then test with the 2GB and do I have to explain that lower settings = lower VRAM usage.

Slow card = low in game settings = low VRAM usage

Of course you might want to argue that some people like to play with 25FPS like @hrp32 but most gamers don't. Between Ultra 25FPS and Medium 60FPS, I pick the latter.

Oh and in response to your "trash talker" accusation, all I got is "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser".

 

[rruff]

As I said, only old games and simpler games like CS:GO/Dota2/LoL run well with 2 GB cards nowadays, for modern games, it's not recommended to buy a 2 GB card to play now.

Focusing on vram isn't sensible. The cards are weak and 2GB is an appropriate amount of vram for them. Just because you can create a situation where extra vram reduces variance, doesn't mean it couldn't also be avoided easily. And adding vram so you can be more careless with settings makes less sense than spending money on a faster card. Usually. Budget cards like the 1050 and 460 do not run many new games well regardless of the amount of vram. When has it ever been otherwise for low priced cards?

 

[Kanan]

There are more than enough settings on more than enough games that make using a 4GB RX 460 worthwile now or in the future - I'm very sure on that. And as you both are unable to present any evidence, I don't need to do that either (besides I already did it). Save to say, I still think 15$ saved to just buy a 100$ card instead of a 115$ is stupid and I'm still sure what I say holds true (reselling value is down too, maybe more than halved in future, 2 GB compared to 4 GB). You're just going for excuses more and more, every time I present more evidence. Laughable and shortsighted.

 

[m&m's]

There are more than enough settings on more than enough games that make using a 4GB RX 460 worthwile now or in the future - I'm very sure on that. And as you both are unable to present any evidence, I don't need to do that either (besides I already did it).

I did present you evidence back in post #35 but you misunderstood the graphs as shown by your post #36.

Save to say, I still think 15$ saved to just buy a 100$ card instead of a 115$ is stupid and I'm still sure what I say holds true (reselling value is down too, maybe more than halved in future, 2 GB compared to 4 GB).

You do realize RX 470s 4GB are available for $150? Someone with a very limited budget should get the 2GB but someone ready to spend $15 for so low improvement might as well get the RX 470 for a little more.

You're just going for excuses more and more, every time I present more evidence. Laughable and shortsighted.

"every time I present more evidence", this is what is laughable, you do realize you posted one single link and a translation of the link? You also don't seam to realize that I'm not "going for more excuses" but I'm actually saying the same thing since the beginning.