TR Forums

Hi everybody! I'm posting because I found the RX 460 review on here to be quite excellent. First off I gotta say here in Germany the RX 460 2GB is 116 EUR while the 4GB is 137 EUR and the GTX 950 is 148 EUR. I got the XFX RX 460 4GB for 137 EUR. According to a German site which has done exhaustive benchmarking, the overclocked 950 with 6-pin connector is 10% faster than the fastest RX 460 4GB (the Sapphire Nitro also tested here which has a base clock of 1175MHz vs 1090MHz for all other partner cards but a boost clock of 1250MHz vs 1220MHz for the other cards). Then come into play the factors mentioned in the review here. Where I live the newer card is slightly cheaper and of course is newer tech and I do play Doom where I benefit from the improved performance. Then there's things like connectors and the fact that most GTX 950 models seem to have all aluminium coolers without heatpipes. The heatsink on the overclocked Gigabyte model which goes for 148 EUR right now and that comes with a single fan looks downright puny. The GTX 950 beats the 2GB RX 460 because the AMD card's memory management is not as good. But the 4GB model has the RAM advantage over the GTX 950 and still costs less. And having enough vRAM does matter, even for 1080p. In the end I picked the RX 460 4GB from XFX because it was cheaper than the Sapphire Nitro hoping that the slower base clock won't matter all that much because with its quality cooler with heatpipes it'll hopefully stay at its boost clock rate indefinitely during gaming. To sum up, newer tech, more RAM and the card generally being in the same class as the older card and for once not being beaten in the efficiency department made me choose to go with AMD. CPU on this all new budget build will be an X4 880K on one of the new Gigabyte A88X FM2+ boards with USB 3.1.

The Rx 460 is fine. In fact TR picked it for it's budget build in the Oct Build Guide:
http://techreport.com/review/30606/the- ... -edition/8
However Since the FM2+ socket is a dying platform I will advise you go with the Intel i3-6100 instead.

I know but the 880K should do fine the next couple years and it allowed me to choose a RX 460 4GB over a R7 360. My main rig has a RX 470 Nitro+ 8GB and a i3-6100.

I don't know where you're buying your parts, but going FM2+ now when the AM4 platform is (apparently) going to be available this month is only something to do if you absolutely need to build a bargain box right now, and are getting insanely good pricing on it.

Sure, the CPU there is a 2016 model, but it's not good 2016 technology and it probably going to be looked back on by its future users in the same way as if you (as the builder) had chosen to spec out for them a C2Q in autumn 2008, or a Pentium D in summer 2006. If you're the end user, of course, it's easier to dismiss any future frustration with your own decision

h3r3t1k wrote:

I know but the 880K should do fine the next couple years and it allowed me to choose a RX 460 4GB over a R7 360. My main rig has a RX 470 Nitro+ 8GB and a i3-6100.

The 6100 may be more money, but the G4520 should be pretty good competition to the 880k. See this benchmark of the two generation older, and 400mhz slower, G3258 against the 860k, which is the same CPU as the 880k with different stock clockspeeds (i.e. it'll be identical when overclocked):
http://www.techspot.com/review/1017-bes ... aming-cpu/

I know the G4520 has an upgrade path while the X4 880K doesn't but the whole point is that while not sexy the 880K will do fine the next couple years while the G4520 is already obsolete for gaming because it's only got 2 threads. Better single core performance doesn't make up for that. I doubt my main rig with its i3-6100 does better in gaming because of its CPU but because of its GPU. I'll stick with 1080p as long as I can so I doubt CPU-bottlenecking will be an issue. Am I wrong?

Will the new Athlons for AM4 be that much faster?

h3r3t1k wrote:

I know the G4520 has an upgrade path while the X4 880K doesn't but the whole point is that while not sexy the 880K will do fine the next couple years while the G4520 is already obsolete for gaming because it's only got 2 threads. Better single core performance doesn't make up for that. I doubt my main rig with its i3-6100 does better in gaming because of its CPU but because of its GPU. I'll stick with 1080p as long as I can so I doubt CPU-bottlenecking will be an issue. Am I wrong?

Will the new Athlons for AM4 be that much faster?

1.) A bit
2.) It's worth waiting for, so you can drop Zen right into the board when you have the money. No matter what else is true, having an upgrade path is important when you're starting out with an entry-level CPU.

the G4520 is already obsolete for gaming because it's only got 2 threads.

Evidence massively needed that this statement isn't just propaganda.  And I have facts on my side using an even older Haswell era Pentium that was comparing favorably to 8-core AMD processors that would blow the 880K out of the water: http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor

  Additionally, there is a 100% certain upgrade path for a Skylake Pentium that's a known quantity right now. There is absolutely no guarantee that Zen is going to be superior to the upgrade path for Skylake, especially in games where despite all the propaganda single-core performance is still vital.

Check out TR's TX 460 review which includes the GTX950.  In average FPS, the two cards are equal.  At the time of launch (RX460 drivers may not have been fully mature as the GTX950 that's been out for over a year) the GTX950 has the edge in 99th% fps which is an indication that the GTX950 delivered more consistent framerates.  Anyway, I think you absolutely made the right choice going with the RX460 simply because it has 4GB VRAM.

@chuckula:  There have been a few recent games that refuse to launch when only 2 CPU threads are detected.  I can't recall the title(s) at the moment, but it was pretty widely agreed that it was just a product of shoddy coding.

I don't know. You guys are right. But in the end this is to be a PS4-killer, second rig on a budget and even with a G4520 knowing that I COULD play games like Far Cry 4 or Dragen Age Inquisition with decent quality at 1080p but then CAN'T because my CPU just has 2 threads plain sucks. Sacrificing playability for an upgrade path cannot be the answer. I mean AMD is not stupid and knows why they sell 845, 860/70/80K. As in the review on Gamersnexus (good youtube video) stated the 880K makes sense if you have enough money for a 880K and a decent GPU but not enough for a i3-6100 and a decent GPU. Here in Germany the FX-6300 is 10% more expensive and according to a recent benchmark is about that much more powerful than the 880K but it is also obsolete tech and if I was to go with something better it'd be a Skylake i3 which for reasons stated will not do.

The Godavari Athlon X4 880K is top of AMD's budget CPU range still, as there is no Bristol Ridge equivalent yet (or any 95 W chips in the new generation). So for a must-build-now AMD budget build, where the system will be relatively short-lived and not upgraded, it's reasonable.

For anything else, wait or go Intel.

The Athlon X4 880K is obsolete tech too, like the FX range.

h3r3t1k wrote:

I don't know. You guys are right. But in the end this is to be a PS4-killer, second rig on a budget and even with a G4520 knowing that I COULD play games like Far Cry 4 or Dragen Age Inquisition with decent quality at 1080p but then CAN'T because my CPU just has 2 threads plain sucks.

Both those games were released in 2014, almost two years ago now. Can you name anything newer that's been artificially restricted to quad core processors?

And it is an artificial restriction. The average game has dozens of threads and the operating system scheduler is allocating CPU time between them. It makes no difference from a functionality point of view whether two of them are requesting it a lot of the time or four are.

Whether a CPU can executive two or four threads at a time can make a performance difference... but so do a lot of other things. You wouldn't rule out a CPU solely because it's clockspeed was below a given number and I've yet to come across any reason to do the same because it's 'threads' are.

h3r3t1k wrote:

As in the review on Gamersnexus (good youtube video) stated the 880K makes sense if you have enough money for a 880K

You mean this review?
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/23 ... -benchmark

They're using a 980ti and aren't testing them against any similarly priced Intel chips. Indeed, searching their site using google doesn't bring up a single mention of the G4400, G4500 or G4520.

It's not exactly the more rigorous search for the best budget solution. It's more of a check to make sure there are no big issues gaming on it.

The 880k is certainly a perfectly reasonable choice and does have a couple of advantages like the better stock cooler, but it's certainly not the only good choice and it's well worth considering whether the alternative might suit you better.

h3r3t1k wrote:

I don't know. You guys are right. But in the end this is to be a PS4-killer, second rig on a budget and even with a G4520 knowing that I COULD play games like Far Cry 4 or Dragen Age Inquisition with decent quality at 1080p but then CAN'T because my CPU just has 2 threads plain sucks. Sacrificing playability for an upgrade path cannot be the answer. I mean AMD is not stupid and knows why they sell 845, 860/70/80K. As in the review on Gamersnexus (good youtube video) stated the 880K makes sense if you have enough money for a 880K and a decent GPU but not enough for a i3-6100 and a decent GPU. Here in Germany the FX-6300 is 10% more expensive and according to a recent benchmark is about that much more powerful than the 880K but it is also obsolete tech and if I was to go with something better it'd be a Skylake i3 which for reasons stated will not do.

Those two games have since then been patched or fixed to work on dual core. And I suspect that most new games coming out that "requires four threads" will work on a dual core/2 thread CPU just fine. 

h3r3t1k wrote:

you have enough money for a 880K and a decent GPU but not enough for a i3-6100 and a decent GPU

How much does the 880K and i3-6100 cost where you live?  In the US the 880K is $97 and the i3 is $120.  $25 is NOT an amount that I'd consider sacrificing that much performance and platform features for.

Prices change daily but I bought the 880K for 83 EUR, the 860K was 73 so 10 bucks more seamed VERY reasonable especially considering the much better cooler. The only thing I wasn't sure about was if the 880K is worth 20 bucks more over the non-k 845 which costs 62 right now. No one seems to be able to say if it's the case. Found this though which made me go for the 880K: viewtopic.php?t=117871

The i3-6100 is 30 bucks more than the 880K at 112ish bucks. The FX-6300 is 10 bucks more than the 880K at 93 and the G4520 costs the same as the 880K at 83.

I didn't know those games have since been patched. I'm confused. I thought finding the right graphics card was hard... :/

Can you guys tell me if the 880K at least really is worth 20 bucks more than the non-overclockable 845?

You're in Germany?  Turn over your build list and budget to the gerbils.  We'll find you some extra $ for an i3 for sure.

Also, as I was alluding to earlier, keep in mind the price of a single meal at a local restaurant or what you'd spend in a night at a pub if you're only contemplating the price difference of a single component.  Eat at home once or twice instead of going out and you've saved the money needed for that upgrade.

Other money-saving strategies: The holiday season is rapidly approaching.  Not sure about over in Europe, but the week of Thanksgiving brings some pretty good discounts on PC components here in the US.  Maybe the build can wait a couple months?  That's my personal strategy since I'm really itching for an RX 480, but I know I can get one for ~$30+ less in 2 months.  I'll hobble along on my GTX660 until then.

If Doom running on Vulkan is anything to go by for well-coded DX12 performance, Nvidia is going to have a hard time competing against AMD.

I know that's a big 'if' but Vulkan is real and the AMD cards punch far above their weight when they're not running terrible TMIMTBP DX11 code developed using Nvidia's free toolboxes like Gameworks.

Any input on the X4 845 vs 880K debate? 20 bucks more worth the top-tier CPU that's overclockable and comes with a cooler that actually makes it possible?

h3r3t1k wrote:

Any input on the X4 845 vs 880K debate? 20 bucks more worth the top-tier CPU that's overclockable and comes with a cooler that actually makes it possible?

Seems like an impossible question for a stranger to answer without knowing your financial situation. What's 20 bucks worth to you?

Here's a sample list on PCPartPicker for Germany.  (hopefully the link works)

DPete27 wrote:

You're in Germany?  Turn over your build list and budget to the gerbils.  We'll find you some extra $ for an i3 for sure.

Also, as I was alluding to earlier, keep in mind the price of a single meal at a local restaurant or what you'd spend in a night at a pub if you're only contemplating the price difference of a single component.  Eat at home once or twice instead of going out and you've saved the money needed for that upgrade.

Other money-saving strategies: The holiday season is rapidly approaching.  Not sure about over in Europe, but the week of Thanksgiving brings some pretty good discounts on PC components here in the US.  Maybe the build can wait a couple months?  That's my personal strategy since I'm really itching for an RX 480, but I know I can get one for ~$30+ less in 2 months.  I'll hobble along on my GTX660 until then.

The OP will be amazed how much he can save by quitting eating out, smoking, drinking, etc for awhile. That will come out as rather nice computer.

Alright guys I've said it before my main rig has a i3-6100 and I've settled for FM2+ on this build. Can you please tell me if the 880K is worth 20 bucks more over the 845 in your opinion?

h3r3t1k wrote:

Alright guys I've said it before my main rig has a i3-6100 and I've settled for FM2+ on this build. Can you please tell me if the 880K is worth 20 bucks more over the 845 in your opinion?

OK what is this build for? But to answer your question, yest the 880K is worth 20 bucks more then the 845. The Wraith cooler is a bonus. 

h3r3t1k wrote:

Can you guys tell me if the 880K at least really is worth 20 bucks more than the non-overclockable 845?

You pays your money you takes your choice. The newer generation 845 (which is overclockable, but to a lesser extent) will make up the gains in some situations, but the higher clockspeed of the 880k will pull ahead in others.
There's a benchmark here comparing them overclocked to 4Ghz and 4.5Ghz in a couple of games:
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardw ... 845/3.html
The 880k is faster, but the 845 is close. The same goes for the G4520 and G4400.

$20 on the overall system cost is negligible. The whole FM2 platform is a dead end and bad idea these days but if you already have the motherboard purchased then you might as well double down on the better CPU.

845 v 880K is splitting hairs, especially considering that both of them get majorly pwned by three year old Haswells i3s. I'd say yes, for $20 the 880K is better but I'd also emphatically say that 50% more performance is worth another 40 or so. It's not 2005 anymore, and in "a couple of years" the performance bar isn't going to move very much so building a stopgap system doesn't make a lot of sense these days.

GPU wise, the RX 460 is a fine choice. Little bit weaker than the 950, but cheaper and doesn't have the stupidly high power draw that's become associated with the previous few generations of AMD tech. AMD cards generally age better than NV, and more memory is always a good thing.