AMD RADEON RX 460 NOW IN STOCK FROM £99.95 & OcUK VIDEO REVIEW !!

[FoxEye]

Also as someone who constantly searches for the best value for money, I am not elitist in the slightest.

This card is only "good" if you narrow down the criteria so that only the 460 meets it.

1. £100 or less to spend.
2. Budget is more important than value for money.
3. Despite 1 & 2, refuses to buy 2nd hand.
4. Doesn't want "hassle".

(3) Can be justified somewhat if you're buying high end. I myself wouldn't want to spend more than £150 on 2nd hand goods.

BUT... a 2nd hand 7950 is about £50. That's a 50% saving and about 50% more perf than the 460... and the risk is minimal. At the very worst, if you buy from a random 0-feedback ebayer, you'll need to submit a dispute and wait for your money to come back.

The 460 is a crap card for 90% of people. The 10% who agreed with points 1-4 above, well their stubbornness is going to see them get shafted when they buy this turkey

 

[Tommy_Here]

Like I said earlier, you can play 2011 games on a 7850 reasonably well.

You won't be playing anything recent. You won't be playing MGS5, GTA5, FO4, etc, on high settings at 60 FPS on a 7850.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Heck, you won't even do medium settings at 60 FPS.

this is true, using my laptop for reference I can vouch for this, it has a GTX 680m in it with a modded Vbios and the clock at 1100mhz which is a 52% overclock, and 4.7ghz on the memory for a 27% memory overclock, on average it's 50% faster than a stock 680m so around 970m performance give or take, which is quite a bit faster than a 7850, and GTA for instance can do very high settings but sits around mid 40s low 50s and that's with a card much more powerfull than the 7850. so yea you're never getting 60fps on a 7850 on todays games

 

[David Bisset]

this is true, using my laptop for reference I can vouch for this, it has a GTX 680m in it with a modded Vbios and the clock at 1100mhz which is a 52% overclock, and 4.7ghz on the memory for a 27% memory overclock, on average it's 50% faster than a stock 680m so around 970m performance give or take, which is quite a bit faster than a 7850, and GTA for instance can do very high settings but sits around mid 40s low 50s and that's with a card much more powerfull than the 7850. so yea you're never getting 60fps on a 7850 on todays games

biiiiiig gap between v. high settings and 'might almost get 40fps on absolute lowest settings' - and picking GTA V is pretty close to a worst-case scenario as it's got impressively poor optimisation. Edit: At the top end of settings. Lower settings are okish to be fair, better than I expect from Rockstar. At those lower settings it'll run on a 7850@60fps just fine... Edit2: Granted I'm running mine at 1200MHz which is a fairly big difference to stock, though not rare to be achievable.

Edit3: Oops Not talking about the 460! RX 460, not GTX 460. There we go, back on topic

 

[FoxEye]

So you might get 50+ FPS on the very lowest settings.

Not exactly "good enough for 1080p" is it... Most people want high/very high if they're buying a card for 1080p.

That's not elitism either. It's the reason you game on PC instead of a console. Why spend £100 on a PC GPU, when £250 gets you a complete console with more GPU power?

No matter what angle I come at it, I can't see the reason for a gamer to buy a 460.

Others have said it's not a gaming card and that's fine. If people want a £100 GPU which streams and does Photoshop, etc, more power to them.

As a gamer, I couldn't recommend the 460 to anyone.

 

[DarkMatter]

I have a 560ti in one of my PCs and I quite happily play Blizzard games on it and other games but on medium settings.... I can see this performing about the same or a bit better. If I still just played world of Warcraft I would consider it, especially the ones without a PCIE power cables as it makes for very neat cable management lol

I agree on price/performance ratio is never great at the low end, you seem to pay quite a big entry fee into discrete GPUs then they jump in performance quite quickly through the main stream cards then there gets a point where the jump is massive to get any more performance.... This generation it's the gap between RX480/1060 and the 1070.

 

[Davedree]

The front end on the rx460 shows strong dx12 gains over a pitcairn or even gm107/gm206.
The problem is that in dx11 there are no gains bar the increased clockspeed, requiring amd to use considerably more shaders to compete with a nvidia offering. The rx460 in dx11 looks very weak.
It's a good effort from amd especially with the uvd and vce units, but it's 1-2 years too late and this applies to all polaris offerings.

 

[SlowJ]

I don't understand this discussion
RX 460 costs £99.95 for 2GB <75 watts
RX 470 costs £164.99 for 4GB that is £65 extra when I did sums not £30
HD 7950 uses up to 200 watts so needs a bigger power supply and higher running costs.
If the RX 460 is enough for what you want it to do (the target market) and it costs less than the GTX 950 for about the same performance then it fills a niche in the market.

 

[Lokken86]

Pointless and stupid argument!

Where does it stop? £30 more and you can buy a 4G RX 480, a further £30 more and you can buy a 6G 1060. At what point does more stop, a budget is a budget and for some people an extra £30 is not always so easily possible and many of our customers just want the best they can get for a fixed price point.

Exactly. Why does nobody ever get this.

 

[AiiR]

If all you play is league of legends and you don't want to buy used, this is a great buy.

Just seen it gets beat by the GTX950 in some titles, I take that back...

 

[AllBodies]

Could be a decent card for my 720p projector, time for some research...

Yeah it's easily a very powerful card for 720p.

It'll be the same relative performance for 720p as the GTX 1060 and RX 480 are for 1080p. i.e. very good.

 

[Hotwired]

Funny, I still see the 750 Ti getting recommended around here.

Yet that card is the same price as this, a very much faster card.

At the same time people are dragging up the price/performance of new vs SECOND HAND?

Not to mention JUST SPEND MORE being thrown about as budget advice.

...

 

[AthlonXP1800]

I am shocked how bad RX 460 4GB price gouging really are. After read all reviews it seemed RX 460 4GB at £135 and over are very terrible for budget and probably the worst value for money, extra 6 pin power was waste of money consumpted nearly 200W at full load in games and have really very poor OC.

If you are think of buy RX 460 4GB then you need reality check. Here are floods of R9 290 4GB sold in second hand markets for less than £135 now. You can grab one for bargain £110 that will give you massive 100% performance increase in DirectX 11 games and possible 150 to 200% increase in DOOM Vulkan with all settings details maxed out until all 290/290X cards gone forever.

 

[CoolioMcCool]

I don't understand this discussion
RX 460 costs £99.95 for 2GB <75 watts
RX 470 costs £164.99 for 4GB that is £65 extra when I did sums not £30
HD 7950 uses up to 200 watts so needs a bigger power supply and higher running costs.
If the RX 460 is enough for what you want it to do (the target market) and it costs less than the GTX 950 for about the same performance then it fills a niche in the market.

He was talking about the 4GB versions, which i think are a bit silly too tbh, at that price. I feel like the only good place for them is people building cheap rigs and selling them to gullible people who think how much VRAM a graphics card has is the most important thing about it. Basically because it will look good in the name, and lots of people look no further than that.

 

[Bonjour]

I'm still waiting for a card to replace the 7750 in my Steam box. Hopefully they'll do a low profile one of these.

 

[Freddie1980]

Half the power half the performance, unusual to see such a liner relationship between the two, I'm not sure what to make of it.

 

[Armageus]

Most people want high/very high if they're buying a card for 1080p.

That's not elitism either. It's the reason you game on PC instead of a console. Why spend £100 on a PC GPU, when £250 gets you a complete console with more GPU power?

Because not everyone plays the latest games on PCs? There are PC exclusive games that are still popular and don't need huge spec graphics cards:
World of Warcraft, League of Legends, CS: Go
Even stuff like Euro Truck Simulator - that you just can't get on a console, and then games that are better on PC due to Mods or the online community e.g. things like Minecraft.

No matter what angle I come at it, I can't see the reason for a gamer to buy a 460.

As a gamer, I couldn't recommend the 460 to anyone.

But with £100/£135 in your pocket what NEW card do you recommend? 750Ti/960 2GB?

Here are floods of R9 290 4GB sold in second hand markets for less than £135 now. You can grab one for bargain £110 that will give you massive 100% performance increase in DirectX 11 games and possible 150 to 200% increase in DOOM Vulkan with all settings details maxed out until all 290/290X cards gone forever.

It's getting quite boring now - Not everyone wants to buy a second hand card, 290/280/7970/7950. 7970's were launched in 2011... not everyone wants a 5 year old card - GPU's don't actually last forever.

He was talking about the 4GB versions, which i think are a bit silly too tbh, at that price. I feel like the only good place for them is people building cheap rigs and selling them to gullible people who think how much VRAM a graphics card has is the most important thing about it. Basically because it will look good in the name, and lots of people look no further than that.

The 4GB is priced a bit high, but it is what it is. The only reason a 4GB likely exists is because of the people who have been complaining that cards need more VRAM, and that 4GB is only just the minimum required. If the 460 had only been released as a 2GB card, then it would still be slated by some here.

 

[rickh]

Just wanted to add that many of the second hand GPUs I've bought from the MM have died after about 4 years of use, including 7850s. Price to fps ratio is not the only evaluation metric. It's a big gamble spending near half the cost of a new GPU on something that isn't guaranteed to last any time at all.

However, back to this 460, I think that £90 would be a great price relative to its alternatives, given that 750ti is available for 79, and 950 for 109.

 

[Pete @r...]

I bought my 1st pc nearly 3 years ago for a total of £345(new). A8 6600k, cheapo case with built in psu, 2400mhz memory, 500mb hdd and 19" screen. I know it is crap to most of you but it was all I could afford at the time and it did all I needed it to do, and also played games, some top ones as well. Then a year later I snagged a r7 260x 1gb for £70 and that played everything fine too, to be honest did not see much difference, but better for rendering. Not everyone plays games or needs to play games at top quality settings.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Is this not exactly just who the console market is aimed at then?

Firstly, there's no reason why PCs can't serve the same market as another product (consoles). Declaring that they shouldn't because consoles exist is akin to declaring that so-called Smart TVs shouldn't show a picture because non-Smart TVs already do that. No, it's very silly of you to argue that one product shouldn't serve a market because something else does too. There are many reasons to own a PC. If you have one or are getting one, paying £100 so that it can also function as a console-equivalent gaming platform could be a good buy. Better than getting the PC and ALSO spending several hundred on a console.

Further, the idea that consoles are all about budget (dirty console peasants) is false. Consoles have several significant advantages over PCs. They're one small discrete box that fits in nicely by the side of your TV, there's no faffing around with an operating system and updates and anti-virus and all that, like there is with a PC. You don't need to take it apart or build it. If you just want to be able to sit on your bed or sofa and game, a console makes a lot of sense. There are plenty of people who could afford a high-end PC and get a PS4 or XB1 - because it's convenient and does what they want. So it's false to claim that consoles are aimed at people on a budget who can't afford to PC game.

So to make your argument you've first ignored that a PC is multi-purpose and there are many people who might just want to ADD gaming capability to its other purposes and also attempted to argue that budget gaming PCs shouldn't exist because consoles do, when it's perfectly common for more than one thing to serve the same market. Plus, the assumption that consoles are there for people who can't afford PCs is false anyway.

I can well see a £100 graphics card being a sensible choice for many people. And as to all the people insisting on buying second hand, well that's a dubious comparison in the first place because they're effectively arguing against the release of low-end graphics cards all together and secondly, someone whose budget is £100 is probably not going to be very tolerant of risk as they're unlikely to be able to shrug and accept the £100 loss the way someone with a much bigger budget would. Some people here really struggle to see the world from the viewpoint of someone with less money than they. It's not all about absolute cost, it's also about tolerance to risk. For someone with money to spare, saving £50 at a 5% chance of losing their entire investment is worthwhile because the risk isn't really meaningful to them - they can absorb it. But if you say to someone who only gets one shot at this that there's a one in twenty chance they'll lose their investment, that's a bigger deal to them and they may well LEGITIMATELY decide they'd prefer the assurance of it working over an extra 10% performance (for example).

 

[FoxEye]

It's getting quite boring now - Not everyone wants to buy a second hand card, 290/280/7970/7950. 7970's were launched in 2011... not everyone wants a 5 year old card - GPU's don't actually last forever.

There a certain irony to you saying "not everybody wants a 5 year old card", having previously said that a 460 is great to play a 12 year old game on.

Oh and btw, I'm not saying people should buy a 2nd hand card for £100+.

I'm saying, the less you spend, the more than a 2nd hand card becomes a gamble worth taking.

Eg, when you have the choice of:

£100-£130 RX 460
£25 - £35 7850

Both cards perform the same. Where, exactly, is the "risk" in buying such a *cheap* 2nd hand card, and getting the same perf as the 460?

You're looking for some almost mythical person for whom 2nd hand cards are not an option, but is so budget conscious they can't spend more than £100.

Surely, in the *real* world, the more budget conscious you are, the less that a £35 2nd hand card /offends/ you.