I would be surprised if it's on GTX960 level, I think it will end up just below GTX950, but we will see.

So there are a few RX 460 leaks already out.

Performance looks to be very poor. Above 750 Ti level, but not by much. And the cheap version is crippled because of only 2 GB of VRAM 😒

Tom's review of Radeon RX 460 is out http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeo … x-460,4707.html. Kinda disappointed with the performance on DirectX 11, but Vulkan and DX12 seem okay. Still, if the prices don't settle under 110€/$, there seems to be no reason to grab this to replace Geforce GTX 750Ti unless you need the Vulkan/DX12 performance. If looking for a low cost GPU upgrade for something older, this might be the budget winner in that case.

Yeah, the RX 460 is not enough faster than the GTX 750Ti for it to make sense. I'm going to wait out pricing and availability for the GTX 1060. If it will eventually fall to $199, then I will upgrade to it from my 750Ti.

clueless1 wrote:

Yeah, the RX 460 is not enough faster than the GTX 750Ti for it to make sense. I'm going to wait out pricing and availability for the GTX 1060. If it will eventually fall to $199, then I will upgrade to it from my 750Ti.

it's clearly faster than the 750 ti, specially on DX12 games and the 4GB model...
but probably not a good upgrade for 750 ti owners, they should check the 470 or wait for a "1050" I would think,

the 460 is a decent entry level card for 1080P medium-low gaming
and also useful for HEVC/VP9 and HDMI 2.0... no good reason to buy the 750 ti anymore I think...

SPBHM wrote:

it's clearly faster than the 750 ti, specially on DX12 games and the 4GB model... but probably not a good upgrade for 750 ti own […]
Show full quote

clueless1 wrote:

Yeah, the RX 460 is not enough faster than the GTX 750Ti for it to make sense. I'm going to wait out pricing and availability for the GTX 1060. If it will eventually fall to $199, then I will upgrade to it from my 750Ti.

it's clearly faster than the 750 ti, specially on DX12 games and the 4GB model...
but probably not a good upgrade for 750 ti owners, they should check the 470 or wait for a "1050" I would think,

the 460 is a decent entry level card for 1080P medium-low gaming
and also useful for HEVC/VP9 and HDMI 2.0... no good reason to buy the 750 ti anymore I think...

There might still be a reason to buy GTX 750Ti's, since they use less power than RX 460's. If those Radeons without extra power connector become available for cheap, then it may well become the choice of GPU's to those looking to upgrade their market PC's, who aren't comfortable with swapping the PSU out. The Radeon RX 460 was supposed to be under 75w part, but looking at the reviews out now, those cards have not been even close to it on full blast, rather going over 90 watts when gaming, and using even more power on furmark.

Not sure if the HDMI 2.0 affects many people who buy these cards, since I imagine they will mostly be using whatever FullHD monitor their Acer or whatever came with. HEVC/VP9 is good tho, Youtube shoving VP9 down my first gen i5 cpu is not too pretty. The DX12 performance is nice compared to Nvidia offerings, but I wouldn't neccessarily want this slow of a GPU in DX12 or Vulkan anyway.

Looking at the specs, and the fact that it seems the RX 460 isn't the full Polaris 11 chip, we still might see RX 460X in some point.

Aideka wrote:

Not sure if the HDMI 2.0 affects many people who buy these cards, since I imagine they will mostly be using whatever FullHD monitor their Acer or whatever came with.

I suppose this sort of card would be interesting for a HTPC: the relatively low power means it won't generate a lot of heat, and can be used in a small system (mini-ITX?) with a modest PSU. In that case, having HDMI 2.0 and the ability to play 4k videos on a high-end TV can be interesting.

Scali wrote:

Aideka wrote:

Not sure if the HDMI 2.0 affects many people who buy these cards, since I imagine they will mostly be using whatever FullHD monitor their Acer or whatever came with.

I suppose this sort of card would be interesting for a HTPC: the relatively low power means it won't generate a lot of heat, and can be used in a small system (mini-ITX?) with a modest PSU. In that case, having HDMI 2.0 and the ability to play 4k videos on a high-end TV can be interesting.

Yeah, that is true, the Radeon RX 460 seems to be the cheapest option for HDMI 2.0 right now, and may gather the HTPC audience too. For mini ITX cases I still would want the models with no power connector though. And here's hoping someone makes a low profile version of these cards. Also would like to see a passive version of these GPU's, but I seriously doubt that is going to happen, seems that nowadays all cards get 2-3 fans slapped on them just because gamer looks... 😵

Anyone own any of the new Radeon cards yet? Having a hard time deciding if I should upgrade to R480X or Nvidia Geforce 1060.

snorg wrote:

Anyone own any of the new Radeon cards yet? Having a hard time deciding if I should upgrade to R480X or Nvidia Geforce 1060.

I picked up a reference 8gb rx480 when avaikability sucked, havent ran any benchies yet but GTA5 with vsync enabled is amazing. All the settings maxed out and I never see any frame drops in 1080p. My advice is to NOT get the reference card. It runs around 90c while gaming and crashes sometimes. Honestly I love it and woukd recommend the Sapphire or Powercolor Devil cards to anyone upgrading a gpu.

Reviews I have read suggest that the R480x is good for 1080p/1440p gaming and middle of the road VR, 1060 is supposed to be about the same but might edge ahead slightly at 1440p. AMD does better with DX12 and Vulcan. Power consumption on 1060 is much better, and shorty/mini itx friendly cards are available.
Radeon is more friendly to Open CL, less so Nvidia.

So hard to decide. For my purposes, Radeon might be best, I don't think as many of my non-game applications would take advantage of CUDA as opposed to Open CL.

Radeon Pros: extra 2GB RAM, good VR, good 1440p, Vulcan/DX 12 and Open CL

Nvidia: Smaller card, power friendly, good VR, good 1440p, CUDA

Guess I will have to wait and see what Black Friday sales hold.

Hmm Davinci Resolve supports Open CL as well as Adobe Creative Suite....may go with team red.

Figure there is any benefit to SLI with the R480? Will I need a nuclear power plant onsite and LN2 for cooling? 😁

I'm going to get a PS4 Pro instead 🤣

This upgrade cycle isn't for me.

If it helps my PSU is an old Antec BP 550 watt and my overall system is an FX-8350, ssd, storage HDD, 3 120mm fans, and the 8gb rx480. Jumped from a 32mb AIW Radeon 7200 in 2000 to a HD7770 in 2010, to a HD7870 in 2012 to the rx480 currently. So I may be biased. But the RX 480 is a great card.

snorg wrote:

AMD does better with DX12 and Vulcan.

I think what you mean to say is that AMD's DX11 and lower drivers aren't very good, and DX12/Vulkan allows them to close the gap a little.
Combined with some AMD-sponsored DX12/Vulkan titles to skew the image more towards AMD.

When it all comes down to it, nVidia still has the faster cards. In fact, you could argue that nVidia is a better deal because if you get a certain level of performance in DX12/Vulkan, it will do relatively better than a similar AMD card in DX11/OpenGL.

nVidia actually has the better hardware for DX12, since they actually support the new rendering features such as conservative rasterization and rasterizer ordered views.
AMD does not have support for these features at all, and as such only has very limited DX12 support.
Ironically enough even Intel's IGPs support these new features. If AMD still doesn't support full DX12 with the new Vega architecture, I think it's safe to say AMD is dropping out of the race.
You should look at the full specs to see the whole story: nVidia needs less transistors, less power, less memory bandwidth etc to get the same performance as AMD, and support more DX12 features (aside from other stuff like the multi-projection they've added for VR).
Price/performance just means that AMD is willing to cut into their profit margins hard in order to try and stay relevant.

Scali wrote:

nVidia actually has the better hardware for DX12, since they actually support the new rendering features such as conservative ra […]
Show full quote

snorg wrote:

AMD does better with DX12 and Vulcan.

nVidia actually has the better hardware for DX12, since they actually support the new rendering features such as conservative rasterization and rasterizer ordered views.
AMD does not have support for these features at all, and as such only has very limited DX12 support.
Ironically enough even Intel's IGPs support these new features. If AMD still doesn't support full DX12 with the new Vega architecture, I think it's safe to say AMD is dropping out of the race.

Well, until these features are actually utilised by game engines and game devs, they don't exist for users.
For now the buzz word is async compute, and it's supported by both nv and amd gpu's.

That is a good point. DX12 on AMD just shows how much overhead the have with other APIs. Nvidia is just fast at everything basically 😀

I'm glad Polaris is on console though, it fits their quite nicely.

agent_x007 wrote:

Well, until these features are actually utilised by game engines and game devs, they don't exist for users.

They are.
Tomb Raider supports conservative rasterization. F1 2016 (even 2015?) supports rasterizer ordered views.
There's probably others.

agent_x007 wrote:

For now the buzz word is async compute, and it's supported by both nv and amd gpu's.

Yup, async compute is currently AMD's lifeline. It allows them to somewhat boost their inefficient GPU usage (sounds a bit like HT on the P4 doesn't it?).
Since nVidia's GPUs make more efficient use of their execution resources in the first place, there's less performance left on the table to tap into with async compute.
Which is a good thing, since async compute is a horrible technology to try and get performance gains from.

agent_x007 wrote:

Scali wrote:

nVidia actually has the better hardware for DX12, since they actually support the new rendering features such as conservative ra […]
Show full quote

snorg wrote:

AMD does better with DX12 and Vulcan.

nVidia actually has the better hardware for DX12, since they actually support the new rendering features such as conservative rasterization and rasterizer ordered views.
AMD does not have support for these features at all, and as such only has very limited DX12 support.
Ironically enough even Intel's IGPs support these new features. If AMD still doesn't support full DX12 with the new Vega architecture, I think it's safe to say AMD is dropping out of the race.

Well, until these features are actually utilised by game engines and game devs, they don't exist for users.
For now the buzz word is async compute, and it's supported by both nv and amd gpu's.

Yea because that worked great with the x800 owners back in 2006 with unreal engine 3 games making there cards 100% worthless, while plenty of people played games until 2009/2010 with their 6600GT/6800/6800GT/6800 Ultra cards. It's never a good idea to not implement features if you have the lesser amount of Market share, right now Nvidia dictates what the industry will support as they have every generation because their market share has always been larger. Why do you think tessalation didn't take off in 2002 when ATI had it and Nvidia didn't. But SM3 became mainstream within 2 years

@up
Both, the conservative rasterization, and rasterizer ordered views are Optional for DirectX 12 (FL12_0) : LINK, and that's what M$ says.
They are required for FL12_1 - that's true, but you can't make FL12_0 a new "SM2.0b", and FL12_1 the new "SM3.0", because it's much too early to tell.

PS. SM2.0A = FeatureLevel 9.1, SM2.0B = FeatureLevel 9.2.