Benchmarks

Test system specifications OS Windows 10 CPU Intel Core i7-5930K, 6-core @ 4.5GHz RAM 32GB Corsair DDR4 @ 3,000MHz HDD 512GB Samsung SM951 M.2 PCI-e 3.0 SSD, 500GB Samsung Evo SSD Motherboard ASUS X99 Deluxe USB 3.1 Power Supply Corsair HX1200i Cooling Corsair H110i GT liquid cooler

As always, the trusty Ars UK system handled the benchmarks. While all the cards support overclocking, they were left at stock speeds during testing. Most of the cards do support a reasonable (5-10% overclock), but you might want to make sure you pick up a card with the additional PCIe power connector.

The data set has been whittled down to benchmarks of games that represent a good cross section of engines and computational load. The synthetic and science-focused benchmarks have been jettisoned, simply because these cards aren't up to the job. All cards were tested at 1080p and 1440p resolutions (4K is most definitely off the cards), at the same high and ultra-settings as the pricier cards. Note that dialling back to high or perhaps even medium settings will give you much higher frame rates, though for the most part these cards do a surprisingly good job of maintaining decent frame rates at high settings.

In addition, there's a graph showing the performance per £100 spent; that is, what's the average FPS you get for every £100 you spend? Value for money is key with these cards, and while those after the fastest will want to stick with the standard benchmark charts, FPS-per-£100 gives a good indication as to whether you're paying through the nose for the privilege. The RX 480 and GTX 1060, the next step up from these budget-minded cards, are also included for comparison.











































There's one clear winner, both in terms of absolute performance and value-for-money—the RX 470!—but the benchmarks do show some startling differences between the two GPU rivals. For starters, clearly, Nvidia has the leg up when it comes to architecture efficiency. The GTX 1050 Ti, which comes in at the same 75W TDP as the RX 460, is a much faster card, with an average gain of around 10FPS in most games. That said, it is around £30 more expensive than the RX 460, with the GTX 1050 instead being a more direct competitor. There, results are much more mixed, with AMD coming in faster in some games, and Nvidia in others.

Notably, both turn in a respectable performance, pushing out a minimum of a relatively smooth 30FPS at ultra-settings at 1080p. Technically, the GTX 1050 has an ever-so-slightly better FPS-per-£100, but that doesn't consider the fact that you can get 4GB of memory with the RX 460 for the same price as a 2GB GTX 1050. If you need a graphics card that doesn't require 6-pin power and you've only got around £100 or so to spend, the 4GB RX 460 is the way to go.

Moving up the stack to the RX 470 and GTX 1050 Ti, there's a much greater gulf in price, with AMD's card sporting the higher price tag. That makes direct comparisons between the two tricky. That said, for the extra cash, you get a lot more performance with the RX 470. You're effectively going from around 40FPS with the Nvidia card to over 60FPS with the RX 470 in nearly all games, which makes it a formidable alternative to the more expensive RX 480 and GTX 1060. The GTX 1050 Ti is still a good performer given the price, but a locked 60FPS is out of reach without compromises to visual fidelity.

On a budget? Go AMD

The GTX 1050 Ti will still suit those without a 6-pin power connector: it's the fastest card you can buy in that category and reconfirms Nvidia's lead when it comes to power-efficiency. If, however, you're a little savvier and know what a 6-pin PCIe connector looks like, there's no question the RX 470 is the way to go. It provides far superior performance, managing over 60FPS in most games, and—in the Asus implementation at least—remains a surprisingly quiet card. The 120W TDP isn't unreasonable given the performance on offer, and in both dollars and pounds it offers the most bang-for-your-buck.

Nvidia's offerings are more of a token nod to the budget market, rather than an aggressive strike on it; the company just doesn't seem that interested in selling cheaper cards, and understandably so when it has the high-margin, high-performance market all to itself with the GTX 1070, 1080, and Titan.

As an aside, retesting the RX 480 shows just how much AMD's drivers have improved since launch. There's a huge 25 percent boost across most games, which makes the RX 480 far more competitive with the GTX 1060. It's still not quite as fast, and the current pricing on the 8GB version makes it a tricky to recommend outright, but if you can find a good deal the RX 480 is well worth a look.

AMD has typically offered better products at the budget end of the market, and the RX 460 and RX 470 are no exception. They are the best value cards in their respective price brackets, and certainly, if I had less than £200 to spend on a graphics card, I'd pick up an RX 470 in a heartbeat. It's the graphics card that brings 1080p, 60FPS gaming to the masses, and for that, AMD must be commended.