Jump to content


GTX 1050 vs RX 460 World of Tanks FPS comparison results

GTX 1050 RX 460 Benchmark FPS Graphics Card Graphics

  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

Bavor #1 Posted Dec 17 2016 - 18:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 33935 battles
  • 3,170
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

There are many gamers who don't spend much on hardware and also often have computers that can't power a high end graphics card.  I've been asked before what low end graphics cards are better for World of Tanks.  I had the opportunity to test several of them recently.

 

I used Fraps and a WoT replay of the M41 Bulldog on the Windstorm map to compare the GTX 1050 vs the RX 460.  Fraps recorded the minimum, average, and maximum FPS for the battle.  The RX 460 that was used cost $95 and the GTX 1050 that was used cost $100.  Both are models that don't use any additional power and get all their power through the PCI Express x16 slot.  Also, both cards have 2 GB of memory.

 

The computer used for the comparison had these specs:
i7 6700K overclocked to 4.6 GHz and water cooled.
32 GB DDR 4 RAM (8GB x 4 sticks)
1 TB Samsung EVO 850 SSD
Seasonic 750 Watt power supply
Windows 10 Pro

The faster processor was used to ensure neither graphics card was hindered by CPU performance.

 

The two graphics cards tested were:

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini $99.99
PowerColor RED DRAGON Radeon RX 460 $94.99

Both graphics cards were run at their default clock speed.

 

For smooth game play you want to keep your minimum FPS(Frames per Second) above 30 FPS.  Games can start looking like a slide show below 30 FPS.  Games tend to look smoother and are easier to play when you keep your minimum frame rates higher.  Generally 50-60 FPS is where games start to look much smoother to most gamers.  Some people with 60 Hz monitors prefer to have their minimum FPS never drop below 60 FPS then enable V-sync to reduce the visual effect called screen tearing.  Other players have monitors that are capable of 75 Hz, 100 Hz, 120 Hz, 144 Hz, or faster  refresh rates and want higher average FPS in game.  Minimum and average frame per second are a matter of both game play quality and personal preference and can be limited by the hardware.  Maximum FPS isn't as important for game play as minimum FPS and average FPS.

 

The Results:

 

Full max is the maximum setting with FXAA-HQ enabled and shadows turned up to Ultra.

 

As you can see at every resolution and graphic setting the GTX 1050 had higher average and higher minimum FPS.  It looks like the GTX 1050 is worth the extra $5.

 

I recently tested quite a few graphics cards that cost between $80 and $120 and will be writing an article comparing all of them in World of Tanks along with other games.

 

I'm sure someone will reply with, "The human eye can't see more than 30 FPS."  There is a myth that the human eye can't distinguish any difference above 30 frames per second, so that having more than 30 FPS is useless.  In scientific testing, it has been proven that the human eye can see differences in frame rate at over 200 frames per second.  One United States military test of pilots showed that they can be shown an image of an aircraft for 1/220th of a second and they can accurately and reliably tell what type of aircraft it is.  Other tests have shown that computer gamers can see a difference between 30 frames per second, 60 frames per second, and 100+ frames per second while playing computer games on newer monitors that have the capability of using refresh rates above 100 Hz.  The difference is noticed more by gamers who have previously played on 100 Hz and faster refresh rate monitors.  Also, some people say that television and movies are shown at approximately 30 FPS, so more than 30 FPS isn't necessary.  However movies and television shows often use motion blur to hide what would seem to be jerky movement due to being played at 30 FPS.



holdmecloserTonyDanza #2 Posted Dec 17 2016 - 18:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 68942 battles
  • 6,846
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011

I used to play on a toaster that struggled to maintain 30 fps and now have a computer that routinely is above 100 fps.  I can tell you first hand that a higher fps alone, no other change in my gameplay style, has made a significant impact in my ability to win 1v1's.  it can't be understated

 

gud poast



Savage__Apples #3 Posted Dec 17 2016 - 19:30

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39944 battles
  • 983
  • [F0CUS] F0CUS
  • Member since:
    05-14-2011
You should have actually played the game and used a toaster computer. I mean if someone has a high end CPU and SSD why would they want a farmville video card? You should also through in some MOBO specs and what slot type as in Pci Express 1.0, 2.0 , 3.0 since the MOBO has a huge impact on video card performance. And what version of the game were you using, SD or HD? It does matter.   There is a huge difference between competitive video gamers, military pilots and your average casual gamer which is why they say the "average" person will not be able to tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. Now if you going to delve into refresh rates and video cards you may want to inform joe public about the difference between AMD Freesync, Nvidia G-Sync and monitors since one is hardware and the other is software and they do not work with each other at all. 

Horribad_At_Tanks #4 Posted Dec 17 2016 - 21:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 6,263
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

View PostSavage__Apples, on Dec 17 2016 - 13:30, said:

You should have actually played the game and used a toaster computer. I mean if someone has a high end CPU and SSD why would they want a farmville video card? You should also through in some MOBO specs and what slot type as in Pci Express 1.0, 2.0 , 3.0 since the MOBO has a huge impact on video card performance. And what version of the game were you using, SD or HD? It does matter.   There is a huge difference between competitive video gamers, military pilots and your average casual gamer which is why they say the "average" person will not be able to tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. Now if you going to delve into refresh rates and video cards you may want to inform joe public about the difference between AMD Freesync, Nvidia G-Sync and monitors since one is hardware and the other is software and they do not work with each other at all. 

 

You can pick up a dell or hp refurb with a solid i5 cpu for super cheap so if you are funds limited this would make a perfect combo for a budget gaming system that has reasonable to high end performance depending on how much you want to spend on the gpu. As to the pcie bus version it's irrelevant to a typical single card setup because even the pcie 2.0 bus has waaaay more bandwidth than even the most pimp current gpu would come close to using. The entire marketing of 'gaming' motherboards is just that. Marketing as you can get just as good gaming performance out of a basic quality budget board(with some searching) as you can an expensive mobo filled with all sorts of shiny dongles.

 

Take this venerable mobo from msi. It has all the features you need for high performance gaming but only costs $50 and if you stick in a g3258 or one of the cheaper locked i5 or even a k chip with a cheap ssd and gpu you can get 1080p gaming on a dime. For a nickel I'll just toss out a complete 720p super budget system with the 1050 that will play 99% of the games out there 60 fps high/ultra settings depending on the game.

 

$420 https://pcpartpicker.com/list/6dBWJV

 

 



Asassian7 #5 Posted Dec 17 2016 - 22:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 25479 battles
  • 12,115
  • [PETCO] PETCO
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011
I wasnt expecting much difference but thats actually pretty significant, wow.

Bavor #6 Posted Dec 17 2016 - 22:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 33935 battles
  • 3,170
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View PostSavage__Apples, on Dec 17 2016 - 13:30, said:

You should have actually played the game and used a toaster computer. I mean if someone has a high end CPU and SSD why would they want a farmville video card? 

 

You should read what I typed above. I said, "The faster processor was used to ensure neither graphics card was hindered by CPU performance."

 

Using a 7200 RPM hard drive or using an SSD has absolutely no effect at all on the minimum and average FPS in World of Tanks.  Its been tested multiple times before.  All it has an effect on is load times.

 

When WoT updated to 9.15, it enabled the ability to use multiple CPU cores.  The game became much less CPU dependent. .  I've also taken the i7 processor, disabled hyperthreading, and under clocked it to 1.5 GHz.  The result was either no change in FPS or a reduction of 3 FPS on average across multiple video cards depending on the game setting and resolution.  I've also tested WoT 9.15 with different GPUs on 5+ year old computers with PCI Expressx16 2.0 slots and didn't see a huge reduction in average and minimum FPS in WoT.  

 

Block Quote

You should also through in some MOBO specs and what slot type as in Pci Express 1.0, 2.0 , 3.0 since the MOBO has a huge impact on video card performance. 

 

If its an i7 6700K processor then its obviously a PCI Expressx16 3.0 slot.

 

Block Quote

And what version of the game were you using, SD or HD? It does matter.   

 

You can't use the SD client with the higher graphics settings.  I've installed the SD client before and it didn't have the ability to turn the graphics settings all the way up to maximum.   

 

Block Quote

There is a huge difference between competitive video gamers, military pilots and your average casual gamer which is why they say the "average" person will not be able to tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. 

 

Actually average/casual players can tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS.  I've had friends who were casual game players play computer games on my desktop and ask my why its so much smoother than theirs.  At that time I had an idler graphics card and V-sync enabled limiting my FPS to 60.  Other people have tested it and its been shown that even casual or inexperienced gamers can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS in multiple types of games.

 

Block Quote

 Now if you going to delve into refresh rates and video cards you may want to inform joe public about the difference between AMD Freesync, Nvidia G-Sync and monitors since one is hardware and the other is software and they do not work with each other at all. 

 

Obviously you entirely missed the point of why I posted this.  Both the RX 460 and GTX 1050 are newer and popular budget GPUs.  As I said above, "I've been asked before what low end graphics cards are better for World of Tanks."  I was not asked often about the difference between G-Sync and FreeSync.

 

In addition to that, this time of year you can find them on sale for good prices and also this time of year people receive gift cards or money that they can use at stores for computer upgrades.  

 

Do you really think someone buying a $95-$99 graphics card would be overly concerned with adaptive refresh rate monitors?  Most people who buy lower end graphics cards don't spend the money for adaptive refresh rate monitors.

 



Bavor #7 Posted Dec 17 2016 - 22:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 33935 battles
  • 3,170
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View PostAsassian7, on Dec 17 2016 - 16:01, said:

I wasnt expecting much difference but thats actually pretty significant, wow.

 

I was shocked at the huge difference.  Then I remembered that the GTX 950 beats the RX 460 in most games when I saw other benchmarks.  I also saw other benchmarks that show the R7 370 and RX 460 getting very similar results.  So it makes sense that the GTX 1050 is faster than the GTX 950, R7 370, and RX 460.

CrazyCrave #8 Posted Dec 17 2016 - 22:29

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 20350 battles
  • 516
  • [-EV-] -EV-
  • Member since:
    10-10-2010

The holy grail for a budget gamer is going to be a used HD7950 or R9-280 for $100 as they would be faster then those two as they overclock to RX 470 speed. but I understand your point about PCI Express power only..

 

I also see the OP point and performance results would be notting like a 6700K on an e6600 at stock speed. if your going to spend money then just save up and build something in the $400 to $500 range.


 

Also the RX 460 is now known to be hiding alittle more gpu power if you flash it as to add 20% more.


Edited by CrazyCrave, Dec 17 2016 - 22:32.


Bavor #9 Posted Dec 17 2016 - 23:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 33935 battles
  • 3,170
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View PostCrazyCrave, on Dec 17 2016 - 16:29, said:

The holy grail for a budget gamer is going to be a used HD7950 or R9-280 for $100 as they would be faster then those two as they overclock to RX 470 speed. but I understand your point about PCI Express power only..

 

Right now it looks like the HD 7950's are selling for $100-$150 on eBay once you include shipping.  The R9 280's are selling for $105 and up on eBay  once you include shipping.  You may find lower prices on computer hardware forums.  Many gamers don't overclock their graphics cards and you can't always rely on overclocking to a certain level.  Also, some people want a new GPU for the warranty and newer features.

 

Many cheaper computers don't have power supplies that can handle graphics cards that require 6 or 8 pin connectors, so that's one reason I compared models without additional power connectors.

 

Block Quote

 I also see the OP point and performance results would be notting like a 6700K on an e6600 at stock speed. if your going to spend money then just save up and build something in the $400 to $500 range.

 

I've actually benchmarked WoT 9.15 on a computer with an E8400 at stock speed and also overclocked.  The game is so CPU limited by a nearly 9 year old CPU that is struggles to maintain 40 FPS on the Medium setting and the minimum FPS dips into the 18 to 22 FPS range regularly with graphics cars that usually average 75 FPS on the same settings with newer CPUs.  Also its average FPS with the E8400 is lower than the minimum FPS with the same GPU on system a newer i3 processor.  At that point, a socket 775 quad core processor might be a better upgrade if the player is limited to keeping the socket 775 computer system.  Dual core CPUs that old struggle with WoT.

 

Block Quote

 Also the RX 460 is now known to be hiding alittle more gpu power if you flash it as to add 20% more.

 

Not everyone is lucky enough to flash it and get the other cores working properly.  Also the BIOS flash only works for certain models of the RX 460.  For the price of many of the RX 460's that have the BIOS available, you can buy a GTX 1050 ti.  Even a 20% increase in performance might not even match a GTX 1050.  The original article on overclocking guide shows that the bios flashed RX 460's still don't match the performance of the GTX 1050.

 



Savage__Apples #10 Posted Dec 18 2016 - 02:04

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39944 battles
  • 983
  • [F0CUS] F0CUS
  • Member since:
    05-14-2011

View PostBavor, on Dec 17 2016 - 13:07, said:

 

You should read what I typed above. I said, "The faster processor was used to ensure neither graphics card was hindered by CPU performance."

 

Using a 7200 RPM hard drive or using an SSD has absolutely no effect at all on the minimum and average FPS in World of Tanks.  Its been tested multiple times before.  All it has an effect on is load times.

 

When WoT updated to 9.15, it enabled the ability to use multiple CPU cores.  The game became much less CPU dependent. .  I've also taken the i7 processor, disabled hyperthreading, and under clocked it to 1.5 GHz.  The result was either no change in FPS or a reduction of 3 FPS on average across multiple video cards depending on the game setting and resolution.  I've also tested WoT 9.15 with different GPUs on 5+ year old computers with PCI Expressx16 2.0 slots and didn't see a huge reduction in average and minimum FPS in WoT.  

 

 

If its an i7 6700K processor then its obviously a PCI Expressx16 3.0 slot.

 

 

You can't use the SD client with the higher graphics settings.  I've installed the SD client before and it didn't have the ability to turn the graphics settings all the way up to maximum.   

 

 

Actually average/casual players can tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS.  I've had friends who were casual game players play computer games on my desktop and ask my why its so much smoother than theirs.  At that time I had an idler graphics card and V-sync enabled limiting my FPS to 60.  Other people have tested it and its been shown that even casual or inexperienced gamers can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS in multiple types of games.

 

 

Obviously you entirely missed the point of why I posted this.  Both the RX 460 and GTX 1050 are newer and popular budget GPUs.  As I said above, "I've been asked before what low end graphics cards are better for World of Tanks."  I was not asked often about the difference between G-Sync and FreeSync.

 

In addition to that, this time of year you can find them on sale for good prices and also this time of year people receive gift cards or money that they can use at stores for computer upgrades.  

 

Do you really think someone buying a $95-$99 graphics card would be overly concerned with adaptive refresh rate monitors?  Most people who buy lower end graphics cards don't spend the money for adaptive refresh rate monitors.

 

 

Think you missed my point so i will clarify. I am assuming since these are budget vid cards then the computers being used are budget also and are most likely lower end dual cores or worse. I would hate to see someone get a false expectation off your test, waste 100 bucks on a video card and have crap results that are no where near yours. The only reason i brought up Freesync and G-sync is because both cards you tested support it and if like you said people get upgrades or gift cards and such or they have a supported monitor for some reason then it is worth mentioning. 

Bavor #11 Posted Dec 18 2016 - 04:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 33935 battles
  • 3,170
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View PostSavage__Apples, on Dec 17 2016 - 20:04, said:

Think you missed my point so i will clarify. 

 

You had no point.  You rambled on without a clear or coherent point and without specific details.

 

Block Quote

I am assuming since these are budget vid cards then the computers being used are budget also and are most likely lower end dual cores or worse. I would hate to see someone get a false expectation off your test, waste 100 bucks on a video card and have crap results that are no where near yours. 

 

Dual cores or worse?  You are so vague that you don't seem to know what point you are trying to make.  Be specific about what CPU or configurations in particular you think will have much worse performance.  Also how many players would be using those configurations?

 

About the "or worse" than a dual core part, how many people have single core processors these days?  The last single core processor was probably the Semperon 150.  The Semperon 150 was released in 2011 and was OEM only.  It was a low end/budget CPU at that time.  By that point almost all desktop CPUs were 2 to 4 cores.  Finding a single core CPU was difficult even in 2011.  Single core processors were actually becoming uncommon several years before that.

 

As far as dual core processors go, they work fine for WoT.  I know quite a few players running a G3258 or G3220 and other similar Intel dual core CPUs for playing WoT and other games.  I've also run WoT on computers with older dual core and quad core CPUs and it takes a rather old dual core CPU(such as a core 2 duo) to show a significant decrease in performance in WoT when compared to a modern 4 or more core CPU.  

 

With the changes made in 9.15, WoT isn't single threaded CPU limited like it was in version 9.13 or earlier.  Most dual core processors work fine.  I've benchmarked older socket 1155 dual core i3-3XXX computers with the same graphics card that I used in my current computer and only saw a 3% drop in FPS in WoT.  I've also disabled hyper threading and underclocked my i7 processor to 1.0 GHz and 1.5 GHz and only saw a maximum 3% drop in FPS.  At 1.5 GHz with hyperthreading disabled, the CPU benchmark scores were slightly better than the G3258 at stock speed, lower than an i3-3250, i3-4330T, A8-6500, and only slightly better than the Pentium G4520.  At 1.0 GHz with hyperthreading disabled, the CPU benchmark scores were similar to the Intel Core i3-4330TE, Intel Celeron G3900, and Intel Pentium G2120.  Yet the average and minimum FPS was still within 3% of what I achieved with the overclocked i7.

 

The only times I've seen a significant decrease in FPS when comparing a graphics card in a new and older system was a computer with the Intel x38 chipset motherboard and E8400 CPU.  How many people are using a 8+ year old Intel dual core CPU or a computer with the CPU that has the performance of an E8400?  The number is very small.  You can pick up a complete refurbished computer with an E8400 processor for much less than the cost of an RX 480.  A friend of mine bought one recently for $19.99 on eBay.  If you want a refurbished desktop with the E8400 and an 18 month warranty and Windows 7 installed its about $40.

 

How many different computer configurations have you benchmarked different versions of WoT on?  I've run benchmarks of WoT on multiple laptops with i3, i5, and i7 processors.  With integrated Intel graphics and discrete graphics cards.  With desktops, I've run multiple benchmarks on socket 1155 and 1151 systems with i3, i5, and i7 CPUs with over 10 different graphics cards..  I've also benchmarked socket 775 systems with WoT with Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad CPUs.  You can probably find one or two of my computer hardware benchmark articles on Wotlabs and others on some of the World of Tanks blogs.

 

If you are going to question the validity of someone's hardware test, you may want to have specifics or details of other tests or your own test results.

 

Block Quote

 The only reason i brought up Freesync and G-sync is because both cards you tested support it and if like you said people get upgrades or gift cards and such or they have a supported monitor for some reason then it is worth mentioning. 

 

Bringing up monitor technology in a short post about a comparison of the performance two popular budget video cards is off topic and something that should be covered elsewhere.  Its not worth mentioning because its way off topic.



gybob #12 Posted Dec 18 2016 - 04:36

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12875 battles
  • 664
  • [SPYDA] SPYDA
  • Member since:
    08-23-2011

You: " How many people are using a 8+ year old Intel dual core CPU or a computer with the CPU that has the performance of an E8400?"

 

Me: *Raises his hand because that is EXACTLY what he's playing with.

 

So I play on low settings and get 35 to 50 fps modded.

 

My son recently built a very nice light gaming computer for himself off PC Parts Picker and it has "piqued" my interest in building one for myself. Unfortunately paying bills, putting food on the table, and buying presents at this time of year are priorities above a new computer. I have saved his build as a starting point for when I can afford my own personal upgrade.



Bavor #13 Posted Dec 18 2016 - 05:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 33935 battles
  • 3,170
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View Postgybob, on Dec 17 2016 - 22:36, said:

You: " How many people are using a 8+ year old Intel dual core CPU or a computer with the CPU that has the performance of an E8400?"

 

Me: *Raises his hand because that is EXACTLY what he's playing with.

 

You are in a very small percentage of WoT players.  Especially among players on the NA and EU servers.

 

Block Quote

 So I play on low settings and get 35 to 50 fps modded.

 

At least the game is still playable at that frame rate.  I played WoT on an older laptop for a while getting similar FPS.  The game is easier to play when you can maintain 60+ FPS.

 

I had an issue with my computer after an update recently where I couldn't get more than 26 FPS in WoT.  It was a little difficult to play at that FPS.  Then I found out Windows decided to change my monitor's refresh rate to 26 Hz for some reason.  The game is a bit rough at 26 FPS all the time.

 

Block Quote

My son recently built a very nice light gaming computer for himself off PC Parts Picker and it has "piqued" my interest in building one for myself. Unfortunately paying bills, putting food on the table, and buying presents at this time of year are priorities above a new computer. I have saved his build as a starting point for when I can afford my own personal upgrade.

 

I've found that buying used equipment from other games that have upgraded sometimes is a good way to get a newer computer.  When I was a poor college student, my computer died and I ended up picking up a 3 year old processor, motherboard, and memory for a low price from someone who had to have the latest and greatest computer system every few years.  AMD is releasing new processors soon.  You might get a good deal when they are released.

 

Also, Microcenter sometimes has bundle deals where they will discount a motherboard and CPU and sometimes other components if purchased together.  Their current Motherboard and CPU discount is $30.



benymazz #14 Posted Dec 18 2016 - 20:46

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21269 battles
  • 124
  • [-NHL-] -NHL-
  • Member since:
    03-06-2014

Different cards have different structures, so some might handle certain engines better than others. By no means saying your data is bad, just throwing this out there for discussion. However, after looking at the charts, I will say that it's unlikely that the RX 460 will outperform the 1050 under any circumstances. 

 

Also, if it's easy for you to put up a chart of the temperatures of the cards, I'd like to see that.

 

Finally, FWIW I just did a couple of battles and logged some things.

 

Card: EVGA Nvidia GTX 980 Hybrid (water and internal fan cooled, radiator fan at 75%, internal fan at 26%)

CPU: Intel 6700K @ 4.00 GHz (water cooled)

Average FPS: 101.2

Graphics settings: Full max

Average card temperature: 36°C

Min card temp: 29°C

Max card temp: 42°C


Edited by benymazz, Dec 18 2016 - 20:47.


Gomez_Adams #15 Posted Dec 18 2016 - 20:50

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 5 battles
  • 5,402
  • Member since:
    04-06-2015

Odd.

 

I play the game completely maxed out at 1920 x 1080p on a EVGA SSC GTX960 4GB, old i7 @ 4.3 ghz, regular old 2TB HD, 16 gigs of ram, 600 watt bronze EVGA power supply all packed in a 800 dollar Dell XPS 8300 I bought 8 years ago and get 60 FPS all day long. I get the same in WoWS.



Reiko_Nagase #16 Posted Dec 18 2016 - 20:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 13345 battles
  • 1,003
  • [MAKI] MAKI
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

I Have a GTX 950 FTW machine coupled with a Pentium G3258, I was torn between the RX 460 and GTX 950, Almost got the RX 460 because it was newer and cheaper, Glad to see that I didn't.

NVIDIA is great.



Horribad_At_Tanks #17 Posted Dec 18 2016 - 22:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 6,263
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

View PostReiko_Nagase, on Dec 18 2016 - 14:56, said:

I Have a GTX 950 FTW machine coupled with a Pentium G3258, I was torn between the RX 460 and GTX 950, Almost got the RX 460 because it was newer and cheaper, Glad to see that I didn't.

NVIDIA is great.

 

The evga ftw are especially good in that you get a top bin chip so you can oc them to hell and back and get performance near the next step up's reference card. I have a 960 ftw and used a custom bios to fully unlock the clocks and it scores right under reference 970 benchmarks. They stumbled a bit on the 1070/80 release with a factory omission of key thermal pads on the vrm causing actual fires when some overclocker dweebs pushed them to the limits but quickly put out a free kit to add them in and all new cards are protected.

Bavor #18 Posted Dec 31 2016 - 01:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 33935 battles
  • 3,170
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View Postbenymazz, on Dec 18 2016 - 14:46, said:

Also, if it's easy for you to put up a chart of the temperatures of the cards, I'd like to see that.

 

The RX 460's temperature maxed out at 80 degrees C.  The GTX 1050's temperature maxed out at 67 degrees C.  Both cards have nearly identical coolers.  They are round heat sinks with many fins sticking out from the center and a single fan blowing over the heat sink.  Both of them had a plastic shroud that covers the top that allows air out of all sides.  The RX 460's heatsink seemed to be larger and have more surface area when compared to the GTX 1050's heatsink.  System monitoring software reported the RX 460's fan working properly and it changed speed based on the GPU temperature.  To be sure there wasn't an assembly issue causing the higher temperatures with the RX 460, I removed the heat sink from the RX 460 and checked for adequate thermal paste.  It appeared to have the proper amount and the entire GPU chip surface area was covered with a thin layer.  

 

A RX 460 with one of the much larger heatsinks and dual cooling fans may yield higher FPS.  However, they all cost $120-$140. Factory overclocked GTX 1050's with large heatsinks and multiple fans are also in the $120-$140 price range.  At the higher end of that price range, $135-$140, is the starting price of a GTX 1050 ti.



Bavor #19 Posted Dec 31 2016 - 01:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 33935 battles
  • 3,170
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View PostSavage__Apples, on Dec 17 2016 - 20:04, said:

....I am assuming since these are budget vid cards then the computers being used are budget also and are most likely lower end dual cores or worse. I would hate to see someone get a false expectation off your test, waste 100 bucks on a video card and have crap results that are no where near yours. 

 

In addition to my previous reply, I had the opportunity to test the GTX 1050 in a computer with an i3-3240 CPU.  The i3-3240 is a low end CPU that was released in 2012.  I tested the i3-3240 with hyper-threading on and hyper-threading off.  With hyper-threading off, the i3-3240 has identical performance to the dual core Pentium G2140 CPU.  The i3 was in a system with a H61 motherboard with DDR3-1600 RAM.  Both computers were using the same replay, same WoT settings, and same version of WoT.  THe same version of graphics drivers were used in both computers.  Both computers were running Windows 10.

 

There was no significant difference in average FPS between the i7, the i3 with hyper-threading on, and the i3 with hyper-threading off.  I found it interesting that the computer with the slower processor had a slightly higher minimum FPS with the same GPU.  I'm not sure why that is.  One article I read that was comparing the different generations of Intel CPUs and gaming FPS results said the older CPU getting higher minimum FPS results may be due to the lower CAS latency of the RAM if the game is loading data from RAM when the FPS are the lowest.  

 

The number of CPU cores and CPU speed doesn't have a huge effect on average FPS and minimum FPS in WoT.  This is similar to the results I had in WoT 9.15 with different CPUs and CPU speeds when using the same GPU.



Astralite #20 Posted Dec 31 2016 - 02:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 25865 battles
  • 1,576
  • Member since:
    12-24-2013

In case anyone is interested, as a user of both Freesync and Gsync, AMD Freesync does not play nicely with Bigworld engine. It causes massive flickering in both WoT and WoWS. Gsync however is buttery smooth. 

 

The results here are not a revelation, the 1050 is a bit more powerful than the RX460 and Nvidia drivers have always worked better in this game. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users