For a full rundown of the tech behind Pascal, check out the GTX 1080 review. The GTX 1050 Ti and GTX 1050 also get the full benefit of the Pascal architecture, including Fast Sync, HDR, and G-Sync with a compatible monitor. As an upgrade, they're a much easier sell than the RX 470 for computer novices, although some models of the GTX 1050 Ti have been equipped with additional 6-pin power connectors by partners, so double check before buying. Neither require 6-pin PCIe power, with the 1050 Ti sporting an impressive 75W TDP. The difference lies in clocks speeds and memory, with the 1050 Ti coming in around 100MHz faster on the core clock, and with 4GB of memory instead of 2GB. ![]() Both are based on the GP107 GPU and share the same number of CUDA cores and ROPs, as well as the same 128-bit memory bus. Meanwhile, Nvidia has the GTX 1050 Ti and GTX 1050. For a full rundown of AMD's Polaris tech, check out our RX 480 review. That said, the RX 460 has all the benefits of Polaris, including delta colour compression, more efficient geometry processing, and support for HDR video and FreeSync. That's not a huge problem given the smaller GPU, but games with larger textures that need to be shuffled in and out of memory will suffer. Aside from the obvious reduction in CUs, the memory bus is halved to 128-bits with a 7000MHz clock speed, resulting in just 112GB/s of bandwidth (2GB or 4GB versions are available). As such, there's a big gap in specs between the RX 460 and the RX 470. It doesn't require 6-pin PCIe power, making it a good upgrade for off-the-shelf systems from the likes of Dell and HP. The RX 460 uses the much smaller Polaris 11 GPU, which is also used in many of AMD's laptop graphics cards. The RGB LED-laden Asus Strix Gaming card on test, for example, features a small 50MHz overclock on the core (this was dialled back to stock speeds for the benchmarks). Core clocks and memory clocks are both down too, although some of the more astute manufacturers have made up for this deficiency with mild factory overclocks. The RX 470 features the same Polaris 10 GPU as the RX 480 with a handful of Compute Units (CUs) disabled, leaving 2,048 stream processors and 128 texture units. ![]() Both are based on its 14nm FinFET Polaris architecture, which debuted in the excellent RX 480, but they use quite different GPUs. The question is, which of these budget wonders offers the most bang for your buck? Baby Polaris and PascalĪMD's budget offerings are the RX 470 and RX 460. No, the RX 470, RX 460, GTX 1050 Ti, and GTX 1050 won't blow your socks off in the same way a GTX 1080 will, but they are all excellent, affordable cards that fill a niche and price point. These are those modest goals that all the graphics cards on test hit, but what's surprising is just how much performance you get for such a small outlay. The cheapest card of the lot, AMD's RX 460, costs a mere £112/$110.Īt this end of the market, where the cheapest cards don't even require an external power connector to function, the target is good quality 1080p gaming above 30FPS, or high frame rates for e-sports players at 720p. Fortunately, both AMD and Nvidia have updated their range of sub-£250 graphics cards in recent months, with their more efficient Polaris and Pascal architectures promising better performance without the need for extravagant cooling and power requirements. Although-as evidenced by the, uhh, constructive feedback on the Nvidia GTX 1060 and AMD RX 480 reviews-not everyone agrees. What constitutes a "budget" graphics card? I'd argue that it's anything that costs less than £250/$250.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |