OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£130VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):75 W

XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 10 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB
5.8/10

Overall score

Score
5.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

40%

3.8

Technical score

25%

8.2

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.8

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 91% of graphics cards
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

â–¼Worse than 75%
3.8

Technical score

Technical score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

2.2

Memory

12%

9.0

Power

11%

7.0

Features

5%

8.2

Design

4%

7.2

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 95%
8.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 69% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

8.6

Popularity

Grades by review (10)
5 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 69%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • xfx-radeon-rx-460-4gb
xfx-radeon-rx-460-4gb
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB

Based on 5 · 5

Reviewers like its low power use and quiet running, but are split on gaming performance and dislike the backplate.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB

Based on 205 owners sharing their experience in online comments

57%positive17%mixed26%negative

Owners like its capable gaming speed, while demanding games, limited VRAM and driver trouble hold it back.

What owners dislike

  • Limited performance in demanding games29
  • Owners say BIOS unlock attempts sometimes fail, leaving a black screen, no signal, or a card that drivers no longer recognise, and some could not restore the original BIOS.19
  • Owners report driver crashes, green lines on screen, and trouble with newer driver versions or with installing drivers on older motherboards.8
  • Owners say some cards draw more power from the PCIe slot than it provides, so weak PSUs can shut the PC down, and older motherboards can cause performance drops.7
  • Owners say 2GB of VRAM runs out in newer games, forcing lower textures and causing stutter or crashes.4

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB

Technical score
Technical score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components:

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

2.2

Memory

12%

9.0

Power

11%

7.0

Features

5%

8.2

Design

4%

7.2

Connectivity

3.8
Reviews score
8.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components:

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

7.0
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1933 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1933 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 95.6% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
4,101 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 4,101 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 94.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
1,623 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 1,623 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 95.8% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
2.2 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 2.2 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 93.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
112 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 112 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 94.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.3% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
7,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 7,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 90.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
6
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 6 displays, which is more than 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to 1.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
75 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 75 W, which is lower than that of 90.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
75 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 75 W under peak load, which is lower than 91.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
350 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 350 W PSU, which is lower than that of 92.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.3% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
112 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 112 W, which is lower than that of 89.7% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
178x 121x 40 mm
Length
238 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 238 mm long, which is shorter than 77.8% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Height
121 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 121 mm tall, which is shorter than 56.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.8% of graphics cards.
Slot width
1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
344 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 344 g, which is lighter than 95.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 W vs 650 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (6 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    6 vs 4
  • 44.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (238 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    238 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 13.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 69% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (10)
    5 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • 49.1% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (112 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    112 W vs 220 W
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 13.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 69% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (10)
    5 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • 4x cheaper
    XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£130 vs £520).
    £130 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 58.2% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (123 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    123 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 2 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (6 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    6 vs 4
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 W vs 650 W
  • 49.1% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (112 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    112 W vs 220 W
  • 65.9% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 44.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (238 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    238 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 66.1% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (344 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    344 g vs 1,014 g
  • 51.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,220 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,220 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 26 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (14 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    14 vs 40
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • 43.2% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,090 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,090 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 51.3% lower sentiment score
    3.8 vs 7.8
  • 5.5% worse value for money
    XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7.03 vs 7.4).
    7.03 vs 7.41
  • 51.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,220 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,220 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 26 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (14 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    14 vs 40
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 43.2% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,090 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,090 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 128 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (56 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    56 vs 184
  • 84.5% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (58.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    58.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 87.9% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (19.5 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    19.52 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 48 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (16 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    16 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 90.3% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (2.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    2.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 7 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2016 vs 2023).
    August 2016
    2016 vs 2023
  • 81.9% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (4,101 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    4,101 points vs 22,638 points
  • 86.9% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1933 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,933 points vs 14,779 points
  • 86.6% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (1,623 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    1,623 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 92.7% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (2.2 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    2.15 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 72.9% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.13 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,456 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (896 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    896 vs 4,352
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 75% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (112 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    112 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 63.2% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (7,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    7,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 86.9% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (3,000 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    3,000 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (2 vs 3.1).
    2 vs 3.1
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 6.5 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (41.9 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    41.9 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

5.0
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
26/09/2016
Full review · benchmarks and pricing discussion
Verdict
XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB is hard to recommend at its current price, since a much faster card costs only slightly more.
8.0
AdoredTV
≈ estimated
11/08/2016
Hands-on review · benchmarks, price and VRAM analysis
Verdict
The XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB is the best entry-level card right now, but the 4GB version is overpriced for what it delivers.
9.5
TechteamGB
≈ estimated
08/08/2016
Hands-on review · benchmarks, temperatures and noise
Verdict
The XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB is an excellent budget card and the top pick if you have very little money to spend.
9.0
TechTunerLife
≈ estimated
07/02/2017
Short benchmark · 1080p gaming and temperature check
Verdict
The XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB is a great card for 1080p gaming at medium or high settings without spending more.
9.0
Tech of Tomorrow
≈ estimated
19/01/2017
Hands-on review · CrossFire tests across ten games
Verdict
The XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB scales well in CrossFire, and two cards make a strong budget build.
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
15/08/2016
Benchmark charts · Polaris 11 chip
Verdict
The XFX RX 460 Double Dissipation is a Polaris 11 card that edges past the GTX 965M laptop chip but trails the RX 480 and R9 380.
8.0
willwork4games.net
≈ estimated
30/09/2016
Hands-on test · Esports card
Verdict
The XFX RX 460 Double Dissipation suits esports games like Dota 2 and Overwatch, but its 30 fps average in demanding games shows its limits.
8.0
notebookcheck.com
≈ estimated
10/08/2016
Benchmark test · Entry-level card
Verdict
The XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB Double Dissipation is an entry-level card for 1080p, roughly half as fast as the RX 480 in the games tested.
9.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
22/12/2016
Hands-on test · Fanless cooling
Verdict
The XFX Radeon RX 460 Passive Heatsink Edition is the only fanless Polaris or Pascal card, a silent option that relies on good case airflow.
8.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
04/04/2026
Teardown · Passive cooler
Verdict
The XFX RX 460 Heatsink Edition is a small, fanless card that draws a modest 62 watts, though its passive cooler limits how hard it can run.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB

  • Excellent value for budget 1080p gaming and eSports titles like Overwatch and CS:GO.
  • The 4GB VRAM provides better texture headroom compared to the 2GB models.
  • Efficient cooling system, particularly on the Double Dissipation model with removable fans for easy cleaning.
  • Compact physical footprint, with single-slot and low-profile versions available for small form factor builds.
  • Low power consumption; many models run entirely off the PCIe slot without needing extra power cables.
  • Strong performance in modern APIs like Vulkan and DirectX 12.

What customers don't like about XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB

  • Struggles with modern AAA titles at high settings, often requiring medium or low presets for 60 FPS.
  • Price-to-performance ratio can be poor compared to the slightly more expensive RX 470 or GTX 1050 Ti.
  • Occasional driver stability issues and software glitches reported by some users.
  • Some XFX variants require a 6-pin power connector, which may limit compatibility with very basic OEM power supplies.
  • Limited overclocking headroom; performance gains from manual tuning are often negligible.

Verdict

The XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB is an entry-level graphics card based on the 14nm Polaris 11 architecture, featuring 896 stream processors, 14 compute units, and a 128-bit memory interface. This specific XFX variant typically offers a factory-overclocked boost clock of 1220MHz and is equipped with 4GB of GDDR5 memory running at an effective 7Gbps, providing a memory bandwidth of 112 GB/s. Its main pros include high power efficiency with a low TDP of 75W, support for modern APIs like DirectX 12 and Vulkan, and specialized features such as XFX's Double Dissipation cooling with removable fans for easy maintenance. However, it is largely limited to 1080p gaming at medium settings in modern titles, and some high-performance XFX models require an additional 6-pin power connector despite the low-power nature of the base chip.

Compare XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of XFX Radeon RX 460 4GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found