After reading part one, some people asked if using the overclocked i7-6700K processor would give better results than a less powerful and older processor. I decided to retest both graphics cards with an i3 processor released in 2012 on a socket 1155 motherboard. In addition to that, I tested the effects of different game settings on FPS with both GPUs.
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:
Intel i3-3240 CPU
Asrock H61M-VG4 Motherboard
16 GB DDR3 RAM (8GB x 2 sticks)
500 GB Samsung 840 SSD
Seasonic 650 Watt power supply
Windows 10 Pro
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. Both graphics cards use a single fan and heat sink and have similar cooling designs.
As stated in part one, 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.
GTX 1050 i7 vs i3:
There wasn't a significant difference between the average FPS of either card with the i7 or i3 processor. Two things may have contributed to the slightly lower FPS of the GPUs in the i7 system. One was that the case temperatures in the i7 system were higher, which may have slowed both graphics cards down. The other is that some tests show that DDR3 memory, with its lower latency, yields slightly better performance in some games.
Effects of graphics settings on GTX 1050:
Full max is the maximum graphics preset with shadows turned up to Ultra and FXAA-HQ enabled. Each setting can be compared to the Medium preset to see its effect on average and minimum FPS. As you can see, combining two effects doesn't decrease the average and minimum FPS the same as the difference between the two individual effects added together. Many of the settings had about the same effect on average and minimum FPS when applied individually.
Effects of Graphics settings on RX 460:
For this part, drivers were updated to Crimson Relive 17.1.2. As with the GTX 1050 test, all settings were tested by applying the Medium graphics preset then turning the setting on to turning the slider to hits highest setting(High, Maximum, or Ultra).
Full max is the maximum graphics preset with shadows turned up to Ultra and FXAA-HQ enabled. Each setting can be compared to the Medium preset to see its effect on average and minimum FPS. One thing that is noticed at first is that the settings didn't seem to have as much as an effect on minimum and average FPS. However that may be the incorrect interpretation. The RX 460 seems limited in its performance due to its slower performance when compared with the GTX 1050. In other tests, the RX 460 performed worse than the R7 370 and only slightly better than the R7 360 and GTX 750 ti. The RX 460's performance didn't change because the GPU may be the limiting factor to begin with and there are only so many pixels it can output.
GTX 1050 vs RX 460:
I decided to compare the GTX 1050 and the RX 460 to see their relative performance. Both graphics cards were in the $95-$99 price range when purchased new.
As you can see from the above results, the GTX 1050 consistently outperforms the RX 460 in World of Tanks. If you are considering the purchase of graphics cards with these two GPUs, the GXT 1050 will yield better performance.
For low cost GPUs World of Tanks doesn't need a newer i7 or other high end processor. After the switch to multi core support in version 9.15, World of Tanks is more dependent on GPU performance than CPU performance.
If you are purchasing a new budget GPU for World of Tanks, the GTX 1050 outperforms the RX 460. Other independent tests show similar results in many other games where the GTX 950 and GTX 1050 both outperform the 2GB and 4GB versions of the RX 460 in most games with the exception of a few DX 12 games.