That is a false statement. 60fps in CSGO is not enough. You need 150 at least. And that is not because we feel special or "the human eye can see more than 60fps" or stuff like that. Simply because it works better, way better, faster, that's due to the engine. Also 144hz monitors. So yes we need reviews on those games. The games that are in the review, most of them are 60$ games, pretty much all of them were 60$ on release day. So basically we have roughly 15 games reviewed on the rx 460, yet the GPU itself costs as much as 3 of those games. How many of us will buy a GPU for that much money and spend $60 on a game every few weeks? Answer is a few or even less than a few. People who buy cheap cards buy them not because they will "do the job" but because they can't afford more. People like that tend to play f2p games.

150+ FPS plus works "way better" on a 60hz monitor? The monitor can only display 60fps, so you can't get any smoother. If it's latency/input lag you're chasing, even the fastest 144hz displays have an absolute input latency of 15ms+, or at least a full frame on a 60hz display. Most 60hz monitors will be significantly higher than that... rendering 150 fps or whatever just isn't going to make any tangible difference. In any case, or even if you have a 144hz display, even a 750ti averages ~200fps in CSGO @ 1080P max details... like I said, the 460 is more than enough... review done! I can see where people are coming from that a benchmark or two to illustrate the point would have been nice, and I take the point from @AlmondMan that this could have been done in place of the largely irrelevant 1440P results. But there is absolutely no doubt that the conclusion would have been that the 460 is more than enough for 1080P esports gaming. On top of that, you can bet if Hilbert had left out the 1440P results some other people would be here moaning about how he cut corners and the review was now utterly irrelevant to them. Further, just benchmarking the 460 on a few esports titles would give nothing to compare against... queue more moaning, OR set aside a few more hours to test another couple of cards, then potentially not be ready to publish by NDR... queue more moaning. Hilbert pushes out more benchmarks on his own than (?just about?) any tech site on the web. I totally get why he has a relatively fixed (yet extensive) list of titles and detail settings, and I can well understand why he might get frustrated by someone in the comments trashing the entire review because it doesn't meet their particular requirements. So yeah, maybe an esport title or two would be nice for interest (though for sure it'll prove what we already know). And maybe DOTA 2 at 1440P @ 144hz would be interesting because that just might be an edge case which asks too much of the 460 (though if you're already spending that much on a monitor, just spring for the 470). But let's ask nicely rather than trash the review? That's kind of what I was reacting to (and I realise it wasn't you who was complaining so loudly too, btw).

150+ FPS plus works "way better" on a 60hz monitor? The monitor can only display 60fps, so you can't get any smoother. If it's latency/input lag you're chasing, even the fastest 144hz displays have an absolute input latency of 15ms+, or at least a full frame on a 60hz display. Most 60hz monitors will be significantly higher than that... rendering 150 fps or whatever just isn't going to make any tangible difference. .

Not true for any of the above. Higher fps reduces frame time regardless of the refresh rate of a monitor. Total lag is ~3ms +5ms response on this xb270hu . Far less than an average display with 60hz. 16.7ms + its own signal/input processing lag is going to be well over 20ms.

Not true for any of the above. Higher fps reduces frame time regardless of the refresh rate of a monitor. Total lag is ~3ms +5ms response on this xb270hu . Far less than an average display with 60hz. 16.7ms + its own signal/input processing lag is going to be well over 20ms.

There was some truth to it. If your game is at 100FPS but your monitor is 60Hz, that's 40FPS you will not be seeing. There are benefits to higher frame rates outside of what you can actually see, but the vast majority of the time, that doesn't matter at all. Response time is very important. Whether or not it's more important than refresh rate is debatable, but personally, I would rather have a 60Hz monitor with a quick response time than a 144Hz monitor with a slow response time.

Expected GTX950 performance, so I'm not disappointed. It has indeed enough power for LoL and DOTA2 @1080p. How to flop? Price above 130/140€. P.S: There is space for one RX465 @170€, one that can battle with GTX960 @DX11 and OpenGL and GTX970 @DX12 and Vulkan.

it's at OC 750TI's price... and do what you can expect for this price. not a revolution but not a crap GPU either. also the GTX950 perform really well for the price, so being beween those 2 NVidia's GPU is not a shame at all.

There was some truth to it. If your game is at 100FPS but your monitor is 60Hz, that's 40FPS you will not be seeing. There are benefits to higher frame rates outside of what you can actually see, but the vast majority of the time, that doesn't matter at all. Response time is very important. Whether or not it's more important than refresh rate is debatable, but personally, I would rather have a 60Hz monitor with a quick response time than a 144Hz monitor with a slow response time.

100FPS is what you have "going out" from your computer... but ifyou have a cheap / old monitor then you have nothing more than someone with lower 50FPS possible GPU... also about the response time it is important against "ghost" or "tearing" frames (don't know the exact word for it) monitor's quality is as important as GPU

Seems like a waste of money in this price bracket you might as well just use a a10 apu. $150 @ newegg!?! it should of had at least 1500 core count amd wasting silicon on this card;it should of been $70. take this garbage back to 2012. dont forget hilbert runs the card on intels i7 put this on a amd processor and its gonna suck nuts.:bang: probably looking at a 1000-1400 dx12 time spy bench

Why do you strongly advise buying the 4g version, seeing how the card gets battered by 2g cards in both dx11 and 12, and seeing how you're going to have to lower the quality to get anywhere near 60fps? Have you tested the 2g version? Would be interested to see the results.

In fact gaming with normal image quality settings in 1080 is merely do-able. Modern games hover at that 30 FPS marker, slightly older games inbetween that 30~40 FPS on average.

Review is very good, but I think this is only thing in review which is off the standard. In reality games are tested on maximum available details for comparison. (Not on "normal image quality settings" which are mentioned.) I have seen test on high details where RX 460 averages between 40 and 60 fps. So, normal detail levels should actually be even higher. While there is not big reason to buy this card for PC, it may be pretty good in notebook.

i have just seen one in action today: it perform really well for the price... it is clearly not a bad GPU. but for 30 more buck you have better. just a question of choise

Review is very good, but I think this is only thing in review which is off the standard. In reality games are tested on maximum available details for comparison. (Not on "normal image quality settings" which are mentioned.) I have seen test on high details where RX 460 averages between 40 and 60 fps. So, normal detail levels should actually be even higher. While there is not big reason to buy this card for PC, it may be pretty good in notebook.

I'll look that up, my bad. With normal image quality settings I didn't mean normal in-game settings. I consider normal at least high quality with a little AA. But that should and will be rewritten as it is confusing.

I'll look that up, my bad. With normal image quality settings I didn't mean normal in-game settings. I consider normal at least high quality with a little AA. But that should and will be rewritten as it is confusing.

It is bit confusing. Because for High end GPU owners "normal" details are High/Ultra. But for entry level GPU owner "normal" game details are actually those which state normal. And all those weaker GPUs look much worse than they would if they were tested in separate category with different level of details. But I understand that it would create confusion too as people would take those results out of context of actual settings.

Several things about this review doesn't make sense or simply seems incorrectly conducted. 1) Why is this review using 1440p and above resolutions for this budget card? At that point, all cards around this price range result in unplayable framerates. These ultrahigh resolutions result in unplayable fps for both RX460 and GTX950 - with the RX460 getting an advantage in fps due to its 4GB VRAM over the 950's 2GB VRAM. This misleadingly suggests the RX460 is better than the GTX950. Other reviews at more reasonable resolutions show the GTX950 is equal to or slightly superior than the RX460. And considering GTX950s have been going for as low as $95-$100 after rebate on Newegg (even the new GTX950 75watt models w/o a power pin) this means the GTX950s are better in power efficiency and are better in bang for buck. 2) Why does the power consumption chart claim this card with a PCIe power connector only use 73 watts, but a GTX750 Ti WITHOUT a power connector uses 92 watts? That makes no sense. Every other review out there shows the 750 Ti using 60watts at load (and ~70w max). Other reviews of the RX460 also state the RX460 uses a good deal more power than a GTX750 Ti - around the same power as a standard GTX950 (around 90 to 100 watts at load) - which makes more sense given its power connector. http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=24566&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1 Compare this to Techpowerup & Tomshardware's test of GPU power consumption: https://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_460_STRIX_OC/images/power_average.png https://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_460_STRIX_OC/images/power_maximum.png https://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_750_Ti/images/power_maximum.gif http://media.bestofmicro.com/6/R/601587/original/22-Overview-Gaming.png