Amd rx 460 + fx 6300(2016) a good pair?

Your CPU isn't that great but you will be fine with a rx 460. And yes i would get a good 970 mobo if you want to overclock.

470 is the sweetspot really. Excellent price and 80% of 480 performance. That 6300 is OK...but there will be some games it could hold back the 470, less likely with the 460. Wouldn't really bother with a 750ti now.

The GPU will be fine, and yes I'd want a better mobo if going to OC the CPU

You have a relatively slow CPU and nVidia cards have drivers that are lighter on the CPU, and so often perform better in low-end systems. However, NV has not yet released their new cards lower than the GTX 1060, so a 460 or 470 might still be your best choice. I'd certainly take it over a GTX950 or 750Ti.

hello,
Once again, I'd love to see your sources.
You should also mention that Nvidia drivers are very very very intrusive and sends tons of informations about your computer and your uses, while the Crimsons don't.

I'd like to see your sources on NV's invasion of privacy, I've not heard this before.

Here are mine:

http://pclab.pl/art60000-21.html

GTX 970 framerate increases 11% going from a stock i5 to an OC'd i7, whereas the Radeon 390 increases 61% with by going from the stock i5 to OC'd i7, despite the fact that the GTX 970 is delivering more frames overall[/b]. You can extrapolate from this that the 390 is more CPU bottlenecked despite lower framerates.

Anandtech's breakdown of DX12 vs Mantle vs DX 11 on AMD vs NV

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8962/the-directx-12-performance-preview-amd-nvidia-star-swarm/4

Anandtech said:

Having effectively ruled out the need for 6 core CPUs for Star Swarm, let’s take a look at a breakdown across all of our cards for performance with 2 and 4 cores. What we find is that Star Swarm and DirectX 12 are so efficient that only our most powerful card, the GTX 980, finds itself CPU-bound with just 2 cores. For the AMD cards and other NVIDIA cards we can get GPU bound with the equivalent of an Intel Core i3 processor, showcasing just how effective DirectX 12’s improved batch submission process can be. In fact it’s so efficient that Oxide is running both batch submission and a complete AI simulation over just 2 cores.

Click to expand...

^ Batch submission has nothing to do with video card hardware, but rather is entirely between drivers and CPU.

You can push 4.2/4.3ghz fairly easily on your 78lmt board with a fx6300.

I would most definitely go with a 470 if you can afford it

it's in a french magazine. I can scan it if you want. Just let me know.
Let me summarize it:

When you start the installation, the program starts sending through basic HTTP the version of the driver you are going to install, the PCI ID of your graphic card, to gfswl.geforce.com
It also sends your ID, the size of your display, ... to Adobe and to Google Analytics
And then it sends your basic hardware informations (brand of CPU, SSD,...) to telemetry.nvidia.com
Then it sends detailed information about your configuration to gfe.nvidia.com/getsugar: brand and model of your motherboard, serial number of your motherboard, BIOS version, USB keys connected, size of your RAM, GPU frequency, the list of the applications you are using (not only games), when you use them, stop them, and if it's a game, a historic of the framerate (max and min) and its configuration and statistics, how much time you stayed on a webpage, ...
Close to 100KB of information is transmited to NVidia regularly.

Click to expand...

Here is a look at one of those logs: http://www.canardpc.com/download/cpchw/hw29.getsugar.log

Thing is, there is nothing you can do to stop them getting those informations. It's either you accept to install and use the drivers, and thus let NVidia get those informations, or your bought a nice €600+ carton box.

They installed the Crimsons and started sniffing them as well, and so far only the PCI ID of your graphic card and the brand of your CPU are sent to AMD. And then nothing.




Is it me or the version of the drivers is missing?
The link to your websource is nice, but it gave me a headache

There are plenty of Reddit threads about statements AMD has made regarding it. The latest I've read was that AMD doesn't have the resources right now to put into their DX11 drivers, and instead are banking heavily on DX12 to improve things, as in DX12 its up to the game developer and not AMD to execute parallelism. There aren't many DX12 games out there yet, and will be many more DX11 games released in the future, and there are many existing DX11 titles that people play that run more poorly on low-end CPUs with AMD cards than NV cards, but you can expect it to very gradually get better over time. Still, given today's games, NV cards run better on low-end CPUs than AMD's do because of CPU overhead. Most benchmarks that compare cards only use the highest-end CPUs, so this is usually (accidentally) hidden.

It's funny but everytime I read your posts, there isn't one thing that AMD has done right. "Bad" CPUS, "bad" graphics cards with "bad" drivers, "bad" chipsets, ...
I wonder how come AMD is still around.

I don't think AMD has done bad, just don't think they have really made much in the way of steps forward. Will have to see what happens with Zen, but CPUs have been stagnant since the end of 2012 (other than the release of even higher OCed 8350s (the 8370, 9590, etc), the proposed Excator CPUs might well have been a good step but they dropped it in favor of moving into APUs. And on the GPU side they pretty much keep improving on the older versions going back to the 7xxx lines with some being basically rebrands, adding memory, etc. So comparitively speaking they aren't really moving forward in comparison to Intel or nVidia - their main rivals. Many of us are hoping for a big turnaround and looking to Zen to be the first step

What in most posts is untrue? You criticize me for criticizing AMD's products, but I've yet to see a valid reason to buy an AMD product from you over its competitors.

I presently own several AMD systems, and have owned many more AMD CPUs than Intel - K6-2, K6-3, Athlon 800, Duron 900, Thunderbird 1400, XP 1600+, XP 1700+ TB-A, XP 1700+ TB-B, 2500+ Barton, Barton Mobile, 2800+ Clawhammer, 3000+ Newcastle, x2 3800+ (Brisbane?), Opteron 165 - and when I purchased all of these, they either performed better or were far better values than Intel CPUs. I was building systems with AMD in them since the Pentium Pro era, but since Core2 came out, AMD's performance, value and efficiency have lagged.

I currently have an older A8 as an HTPC, because compared with the Intel systems at the time (32nm Sandy Bridge), AMD had a superior iGPU with better hardware decoding capabilities. However, AMD's iGPU's capabilities haven't changed in close to 4 years and now Skylake CPUs have better iGPUs for that purpose.

I have an FX-8320 which is mostly unused these days, though I still use it as a test bench for the shop I work at. A few days ago I used it to diagnose a DOA FX CPU that a customer just bought. I keep the i5 and i3 as mine and my wife's daily-use PCs, as they perform better in those tasks (by my estimation).

I have not had an nVidia GPU in my primary desktop since the Gefore4 MX. I've owned a Radeon 8500, 9000, 9100, 9500 Pro, 9700Pro, 9800Pro, X800GTO^2, X1800XT, HD3850, HD4850, HD4870x2, HD5850, and HD7850. I've had NV GPUs in my laptops though, because their power efficiency has been better for a very long time, and their mobile feature set has been better.

When I bought my HD7850, it hadn't yet come to light that AMD's drivers were much more CPU heavy, and given that I have a fast i5 it wouldn't make a lot of difference to me anyway. However, I would not recommend an AMD GPU over an NV one to someone with a much weaker CPU - especially one weaker in single-threaded performance. Regarding other aspects of their drivers, AMD's performance tends to improve compared with nVidia's over time, which might make the RX480 a better chip than the GTX1060 in a year or two. You can either look at this as AMD's drivers being poorly optimized at launch, or as AMD extending support for their cards.

AMD chipsets have always been a weak point, even when I was primarily buying their CPUs. They had a few in-house designs, but mostly they were VIA, nVidia or SIS designs, and tended to have many more bugs or problems than Intel's in-house designs.

When I steer people away from AMD's CPUs and GPUs right now, it's not because I hate the company. Their current product stack genuinely has a lot of problems. If Zen performs well, I'll likely buy one, but until then I'm not going to be recommending most AMD products, except for use in the niches they do well in. AMD GPUs make better miners than NV GPUs. AMD FX CPUs make excellent cheap VM rigs. AMD APUs struggle to find a niche that Intel doesn't fill better lately, but there's a very narrow use-case and price-limitation area where they can make sense.

Starting a little to get out of the question of the OP, but you're not entirely right, I think. The RX 4XX Polaris is a 14nm GPU, it's definitly a new architecture compared to the previous one. It's been also designed with DX12 in mind. And last, AMD drivers are now better than NVidias, it's a fact.
So Polaris/Vegas (?) and Zen, I think AMD is moving in the right direction.
I myself, I repeat, am very happy with my 470 and with my 8370. I don't care if I don't hit 100+fps, I just care about my wallet and the best computer I can get with what's inside.

how about I own two of them and I use them all the time, and not just to "bench" or repair a broken part for someone?
Or maybe that's not valid enough for you? Maybe I'm just blind and I can't see what a "bad" rig I have?


nice collection, nice history.
Maybe you're expecting me to talk about my first 486DX33? Or the Amiga 500 I owned before that? Or let's go further back, my ZX81?
I've owned my share of computers (I have a collection of them btw, something like 20 really old ones, some you haven't heard about I bet), and of course many Intel/AMD CPUs. Kept them for sentimental value.


which "tasks"? Benchmarks?


I've had the very second GeForce NVidia released: the GeForce 256 DDR (and not the SDR). I've had many Radeons after, but not as many as you. I'm not such a geek it seems (no offence meant)


The 480 is already a better GPU than the 1060. And as I said, AMD drivers are better now than the NVidias. I'm not just saying that because it's AMD, it's what people and magazines and websites are saying.


you're right. VIAs chipsets were horrible
I tried to avoid SIS ones.
Intels have always been superior, no doubt there.



You will buy a Zen (or 2), you've bought so many CPUs I don't see why you woudn't get a Zen. But I bet you won't have a good thing to say about it. Not just a feeling....
As for their GPUs, I don't know what you do with your 7850 actually, but I don't see you try a 4X0, so what you can tell about them, it's what you will have read. As I said earlier, it's when you use them that you know how good or bad they are. Benchmarks are... "bad".
But oh well.... Another discussion that ends the same way, heh?

Oh good lekeiser is back. I'll just pick out one thing you say..could you show how the 480 is better than the 1060?

That thread a few weeks ago... You came out with so much rubbish about 'how your pc makes you feel' but not once provide numbers.

You defend AMD to the point of making yourself look silly yet no one hates them. But u never actually back anything up.

Then, as above, someone presents reasons arguments and you have nothing sensible to say other than Everyone hates AMD again....

You do realise these things are a bunch of transistors that, within margin, give certain results? Right? I'm not.sure you get that.

If this continues to deteriorate in further 'arguments' it will be closed

I have to show you that a 480 is better than a 1060? Just check the websites, just read the benchmarks you only rely to, and you'll get your answer. I won't waste my time to write them down to you, you'll just spit at them like you are at my posts...

What numbers do I have to provide too? Haven't you read (or understood) any of my posts? I don't give a damn about benchmarks. I use my computer. So I know how it handles my applications, my games, my uses...

Oh well... I wonder why I'm replying to you anyway. No matter what I'll say, you'll always turn things your way. It's always so easy when there is a keyboard and a display in between, you can call people silly and make yourself look bright and intelligent, heh?
Waiting for the mods to enter again now.

Can't work out if you are looking for arguments or just an angry person.

You come into threads, have a go at people for making factual arguments about AMD, defend them, place all argument on how your pc makes you feel (which no one asked for), get angry when you can't respond with fact, and DONT PROVIDE ANY HELP TO THE OP. That's why you wind people up.

And here, they are close, but right now the 1060 at dx11 is better, yes.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1060/26.html

A warning was given, any more back and forth will result in someone getting a timeout