Radeon RX 460 availability check: get ’em while they’re hot

AMD's petite Polaris 11 GPU has arrived aboard the Radeon RX 460, and while Jeff slaves away at getting the review finished up, we've taken the liberty of running around the web checking whether any e-tailers have these cards up for purchase. The answer is: sort of. Inventory is spotty and going fast, but it appears there's generally an RX 460 for you to buy somewhere.

Newegg carries no less than eleven separate listings for RX 460s, from Gigabyte, Asus, Sapphire, XFX, and Powercolor. (There was a listing for an MSI card too, but it appears to have vanished.) As of this writing, some of the cards are out of stock, others are in stock, and others still are waiting for stock—they only have "auto-notify" listings.

Pricing on Newegg is a little higher than what we hoped for, but about what we expected. 2GB cards start at $109 for the Powercolor Red Dragon, while 4GB cards top out at $149 for one of XFX's cards. Gigabyte's WindForce OC 4GB is only $129, though, which is a small premium to pay for double the memory. Just read the specifications carefully, as some of the cards do require a six-pin power connector.

Other retailers are a little behind the pace set by Newegg and mostly haven't even listed the cards yet. Amazon has listings for 4GB cards from Sapphire and XFX, matching Newegg's pricing. B&H Photo Video has two listings for Gigabyte cards, but they're not cheap. Best Buy doesn't have the cards listed at all yet, nor do NCIX US, Fry's Electronics, or Micro Center. If you find a cache of them somewhere, let us know in the comments.

Comments closed
    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    I think the main allure of the 460 would either be its low price (MSRP, at least) and its ability to fit in small form factors. But with AIB partners putting those big cooler on them or not shortening the PCB, that’s one selling point lost. And right now they’re way beyond $110 to attract the target market, IMHO.

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    I can never understand why folks need to buy immediately when something comes out. Is this oxygen we’re talking here? I personally could wait a month or two for supplies and prices to stabilize, not to mention avoid the early adopter kinks similar to the RX 480 launch.

      • Chrispy_
      • 3 years ago

      Agreed. We have been stuck on 28nm for five years. Surely people can wait one more month to not get pricegouged and stung.

      • Voldenuit
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]I can never understand why folks need to buy immediately when something comes out.[/quote<] There's a pent up demand from being stuck on 28nm for the past 4 years. Plus, remember the 5850/5870? Prices actually went [b<]up[/b<] after launch due to demand (and a lack of competition from nvidia), and street prices on the 970 did the same thing. Also, early adopters on 6950 got a "free" 6970 upgrade with a BIOS flash; and early reference 4GB 480 users got the same deal with a free upgrade to 8 GB. If you can get a Polaris or Pascal chip at MSRP now, I'd go for it. It's not like prices will be going down in the near future.

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<]Radeon RX 460 availability check: get 'em while they're hot[/quote<] ... and priced way above MSRP.

    • deruberhanyok
    • 3 years ago

    ..and now all of the newegg listings are gone. Weird.

    [] never mind, just seems like their search function is broken and there’s still no category listing for them. The direct links all work.

    • watzupken
    • 3 years ago

    Having seen the limited reviews, now it’s clear why AMD chose to use a cut down version of the Polaris 11. It seems like it is drawing too much power to fit the description of “no PCI-E power required” claim. A fully enabled chip will likely require a 6pin power.

    I feel the performance is a little underwhelming to be honest. The key to success is likely going to be aggressive pricing. But at the Low end, there is not much wriggle room.

      • AnotherReader
      • 3 years ago

      Reducing the clocks by 5% or so would probably have enabled the full chip to slip under 75 W.

    • selfnoise
    • 3 years ago

    I’m getting this vision of somebody at Nvidia with a hand over a “release 1050” button reading a review of this thing and slowly moving their hand away from the button.

    • PBCrunch
    • 3 years ago

    You can get your hands on these cards because they suck.

    RX 460 barely beats GTX 750 Ti performance, and can’t squeeze into half height slots or be used in machines without PCIe power connectors. Power consumption is basically equal. To a 28nm card from 2014. It seems AMD would have to make an RX 450 to fit into these use cases, at which point they would likely perform worse than GTX 750 Ti.

    RX 460 gets its ass handed to it by GTX 950, which can be found every day all day for $99 after rebate. This is the real competition, because both cards tend to be full-height six-pin cards.

    The standard GCN refrain of “it performs better in next-gen APIs” doesn’t mean as much in this price class because $100 GPU owners probably play older/F2P games that are NOT programmed using Vulkan or DX12.

    The question I haven’t seen answered in ANY of the RX 460 reviews I’ve seen is how the RX 460 and its Nvidia competitors perform when paired with cheaper i3s, Haswell Pentiums, and (gasp) AMD APUs instead of the pricey i7 Skylake and very pricey HEDT platforms. Everyone in the the tech press uses high end platforms for GPU reviews, but I imagine the buyers of these cards actually own CPUs from Core 2 Quad to APUs. AMD’s drivers historically have required lots of CPU power to shine, and people with $500+ CPUs generally don’t pair them with $100 GPUs for gaming.

      • AnotherReader
      • 3 years ago

      [url=http://www.computerbase.de/2016-08/radeon-rx-460-test/3/#diagramm-mirrors-edge-catalyst-1920-1080<]You are incorrect[/url<] about the 750 Ti matching it and the 950 beating it. Still, the power consumption [url=http://www.computerbase.de/2016-08/radeon-rx-460-test/6/<]isn't much better than the 950[/url<].

        • Voldenuit
        • 3 years ago

        750Ti defintiely doesn’t beat it. 950 and the 460 trade blows.

        [url<]http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/95359-sapphire-radeon-rx-460-nitro-4gb/?page=5[/url<] ImSpartacus' theory that nvidia would want people to "trade up" to a 1060 makes a lot of sense, I would not be surprised if the 1050 mainly gets marketed and sold to OEMs and system integrators before widespread retail availability. I do think that a lot of reviews of low and midrange cards omit the CPU scaling angle, because they invariably pair low end GPUs with high end CPUs. That hexus review for instance pairs the 460, 750Ti and 950 with an i7 6700K, fer crissakes. These are not the CPUs that will be partnered with $99-149 cards, so they are unrepresentative of the real-world performance of these cards.

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        It does seem to be a good match for the 950.

        From what I can tell, the architectural improvements between 1st-gen GCN and 4th-gen GCN are very minor indeed. If I was being unkind I would say that there are ZERO improvements.

        In gaming tests at least, the 1GHz x 1024 shaders of the 1st-gen Pitcairn cards (HD7850 / R7 265 / R7 360) is a very very very close match for the 1.1GHz x 896 shaders of the new 4th-gen RX 460 cards.

        It’s so close that they’re within the margin of error for most tests. That makes GCN architectural improvements a big fat zero over the last four and a half years.

        Nvidia on the other hand made Fermi completely obsolete with Kepler. Maxwell was a huge leap forward over Kepler, and Pascal is a huge leap forward in clockspeed even if it’s not such a huge IPC gain as the previous two leaps.

        I really want AMD to do well but their process sucks for both clockspeed and power consumption, and their backup plan should have been architectural improvements. Well, I have read about all the new architectural improvements on paper but the real-world result is (yet again) nonexistent 🙁

          • AnotherReader
          • 3 years ago

          Pitcairn has 32 ROPs compared to Polaris 11’s 16. To gauge architectural improvements, we should compare the RX 470 to the R9 380X; they have the same resource balance. The PowerColor RX 470 Red Devil, when in OC mode, is about 35% faster than the reference 380X. Since the boost clock varies by game, we can see if any games offer greater improvements than the boost clock ratio. In GTA V, the PowerColor stays at maximum boost clock consistently so we should have a 31% improvement in fps if there are no architectural improvements: [url=http://www.computerbase.de/2016-08/radeon-rx-470-test/3/#diagramm-gta-v-1920-1080<]the actual increase is 43%[/url<].

      • deruberhanyok
      • 3 years ago

      I think you may have found some different reviews than the ones I’ve seen so far – it’s definitely faster than a 750ti, seeming to trade blows with the GTX 960 in most reviews I’ve seen. Which I think is about what was expected.

        • PBCrunch
        • 3 years ago

        Data from Tom’s Hardware,

        First things first, this card isn’t for Hitman, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Mirror’s Edge Catalyst, or Doom. It is too slow for these games.

        460 = RX 460, 750 = 750 Ti, 950 = GTX 950

        Games where the 460 is closer to 750 than 950 or is halfway between:
        460 beats 750 by 5 fps in GTA V, loses to 950 by 15 fps
        460 beats 750 by 6 fps in Project CARS, loses to 950 by 13 fps
        460 beats 750 by 10 fps in the Witcher 3, loses to 950 by 9 fps
        460 beats 750 by 2 fps in WoW, loses to 950 by 23 fps

        Games where the 460 is more like a 950 than a 750:
        460 beats 750 by 37 fps in Starcraft II, loses to 950 by 29 fps
        460 beats 750 by 8 fps in Ashes, loses to 950 by 4
        460 beats 750 by 28 fpsin Doom, beats 950 by 7 fps
        460 beats 750 by 25 fps in Hitman, beats 950 by 7 fps

        In eight games, the RX 460 loses to GTX 950 in six of them, sometimes by wide margins. The RX 460 bests the 950 in two games, neither of which are the types of games likely to be played using this card.

        750 Ti isn’t really a fair comparison anyway, because RX 460 costs $110+ compared to GTX 750 Ti which can be purchased regularly for $90 AR; the RX 460 also can’t fit in the same form factors or power envelopes as the GTX 750 Ti. The GTX 950 is the natural comparison; at stock speeds, the GTX 950 stomps on the RX 460. GTX 950 can be had for $99 AR with a little bit of looking around, and has overclocking headroom lacking in Polaris chips to date.

        Tom’s testing was performed with an i7-6700K. Things will assuredly be worse for the AMD card as CPU power decreases. Maxwell cards overclock well; thus far, Polaris overclocking is a joke.

        There is no such thing as a bad video card, just bad pricing. This card isn’t bad, the pricing just isn’t where it should be. AMD has ~20% of the discrete graphics market, and probably even less than that when looking at enthusiast cards. Their Windows drivers are consistently a step or two behind (example: GTA V doesn’t work correctly on RX 460 in the current drivers and didn’t work correctly on RX 480 on release day, either), their Linux drivers are much worse, the cards tend to be hotter and more power hungry, Nvidia has better relationships with developers. With all of this baggage, they need to be out ahead of it, undercutting Nvidia, not delivering worse value for money in this part of the market. This card should have been fully enabled at $109 or cut down the way that it is at $79.

          • deruberhanyok
          • 3 years ago

          Hmm. Guru 3D’s testing shows a different picture:

          [url<]http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-radeon-rx-460-strix-gaming-4gb-review,1.html[/url<] In DX12 and Vulkan tests the 460 regularly matches and occasionally exceeds a 960's performance. The DX11 tests, on the other hand, look much worse for it. So I guess we're both right?

            • PBCrunch
            • 3 years ago

            The Guru3D testing could not be much more irrelevant to the real world settings for these $100ish cards.

            First, they tested a lot of brand-new $60 AAA games, not the F2P and older OGL/DX9/10/11 games owners of these cards will actually play. Games like Rocket League, CS:GO, GTA V, Overwatch, TF2, Skyrim, League of Legends, Dota 2… how many of these titles have DX12/Vulkan versions that outperforms their OGL/DX_OLD version?

            Second, they tested on a 5820K, a CPU with high clock, high IPC, at least double the system memory bandwidth of most desktop PCs, and six cores. If AMD’s drivers are more dependent on host CPU performance than Nvidia’s drivers (past testing with older GCN parts indicates this is true), then RX 460 will be hurt more in testing with a budget CPU than the Nvidia cards bracketing RX 460.

            Third, they tested a $140 4GB pre-OC version of RX 460. No one in their right mind pays $140 for something like RX 460. That kind of money can buy the clever shopper a new R9 380 or GTX 960. The price point begins to invite comparison to $179 versions of RX 470, which is a completely different class of performance.

            Again, no one is testing this card in its native habitat, Dell and HP desktops with Ivy Bridge and Haswell Pentiums and AMD APUs. When that mighty high end CPU power goes away, RX 460 will come down a lot harder than the competing Nvidia products.

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      RX 460 beats the 750Ti in anything that isn’t a “Gameworks” title and almost catches up with a normal 950. It does all of this within the 75W TDP of PCIe slot.

      950 requires more than 75W and needs an [b<]6-pin external PCIe connector[/b<] and 750Ti is known to exceed the 75W TDP under a load. It did it before the whole 480 reference TDP controversy. Nobody batted an eye since 750Ti was a low-end card. You would see similar performance deltas under a weaker CPU (assuming the CPU isn't a bottleneck). Both Nvidia and AMD GPUs need strong CPUs (MHZ/IPC is still king) if you want their full potential realized though.

        • insulin_junkie72
        • 3 years ago

        For the most part, the reviewed RX 460 have 6-pin connectors, too.

        The exception seemed to be the few 2GB, stock RX 460 reviewed – but the reviews also seemed to show you want to stay far, far away from those. It’s the 4GB OC’ed RX 460 cards or bust.

          • AnotherReader
          • 3 years ago

          There is at least one [url=http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5988#sp<]4GB RX 460 sans 6-pin connector[/url<].

            • PBCrunch
            • 3 years ago

            There are GTX 950 boards without 6-pin. There are currently no low profile RX 460 cards.

    • maxxcool
    • 3 years ago

    Almost time for the 460-V-1050 fight .. which is perfect as I need a HTPC upgrade soon.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 3 years ago

      I think Nvidia might their time with the 1050.

      Think about it this way, why did we magically see a tidal wave of 75W 950s if not compete with the 75W 460?

      As far as performance goes, 460 is basically Pitcairn, which was competing with the 950 anyway.

      It’s in Nvidia’s best interest to get people to “buy up” to more expensive cards.

        • maxxcool
        • 3 years ago

        I can wait, I’m patient and the current media box is only hooked to a 1080p. Christmas ? totally different situation. I’m sure it will be out by then :). Then the best 4k pusher wins my monies..

    • tay
    • 3 years ago

    This is a terrible $149 card.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      it’s not as bad a $119 card, though. Unfortunately that’s the 2GB version.

        • CScottG
        • 3 years ago

        $119 for the 4 GB wouldn’t be bad, if shipping were free and they had a current title game to accompany it – it’s a 950 (rebate) competitor.

        The 2 GB version shouldn’t even be selling for as much as $99 and free shipping, let alone the lowest of $109 plus shipping.

        I’ll be waiting until the 2 GB drops in price, it’s a turd (performance-wise) and they can polish it all they want but it’s still a turd and not worth what they are currently asking. (..I want it because it’s cheap card that supports HDMI 2.0b – which is why I’m “pro-turd”.)

    • deruberhanyok
    • 3 years ago

    I saw that MSI link when I ran a search this morning and it didn’t make any sense. It listed an MSI “RX 460 LP 2GB DDR3” or similar. But when I clicked on it, “item not found”.

    Nothing on MSI’s site about RX 460 cards, so… did they whip a low profile card but basically cripple it with really slow memory? Or was it just someone really confused at newegg?

    • chuckula
    • 3 years ago

    I like the HSF with the single fan on the XFX model that’s listed on the Newegg link. Doesn’t look too gaudy and frankly a single fan is supposed to be plenty for a card in this range.

    Link: [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150780&ignorebbr=1[/url<]

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      I’ve had a couple XFX cards in the past and found their fans to be unreasonably loud. Not unbearable, but much louder than, for example, the fans on my GTX 970. Mrs. derFunk’s PC has an R9 270X with the XFX DD cooler, and it makes quite a whooooooooshhhhhhhh

        • AnotherReader
        • 3 years ago

        My first and only XFX, [url=https://techreport.com/review/26092/custom-cooled-radeon-r9-290x-cards-from-asus-and-xfx-reviewed<]a 290X[/url<], has reasonably quiet fans.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This