Tuesday, December 5th 2017

AMD Officially but Silently Downgrades Radeon RX 560 with an 896 SP Variant

The phenomenon of Radeon RX 560 graphics cards with 896 stream processors is more widespread than earlier thought. It looks like RX 560 cards with 896 stream processors will be more widely available than the previously thought Greater China region; with AMD silently editing the specifications of the SKU to have either 896 or 1,024 stream processors, as opposed to the 1,024 it originally launched with. There are no clear labeling guidelines or SKU names to distinguish cards with 896 stream processors from those with 1,024.

The Radeon RX 560 and the previous-generation RX 460 are based on the 14 nm "Polaris 11" silicon, which physically features 16 GCN compute units (CUs), each packed with 64 stream processors. The RX 560 originally maxed this silicon out, with all 16 CUs being enabled, while the RX 460 has two CUs locked. The decision to change specs of the RX 560 effectively makes it a re-brand of the RX 460, which is slower, and provides fertile grounds for bait-and-switch lawsuits.

Source: Heise.de
Add your own comment

129 Comments on AMD Officially but Silently Downgrades Radeon RX 560 with an 896 SP Variant

#1
Vya Domus
They did have a separate name for the 896 shaders variant though and virtually none of the manufacturers used it. So the fault lies in both.
Posted on Reply
#2
RejZoR
Didn't they also upgrade RX 560 into more shaders from RX 460? So, they are just downgrading it back to RX 460 shader count again?
Posted on Reply
#3
Th3pwn3r
Moving in the right direction., NOT.
Posted on Reply
#4
Parn
There were probably too many Polaris 11 dies which didn't pass the QA.
Posted on Reply
#5
EarthDog
I think it was supposed to be a 560D?

But....for whatever reason, that never happenend. This feels like a more misleading move than the gtx 970 memory issue.. :(
Posted on Reply
#7
EarthDog
Yeah, cant say the word 'Evo' does anything to discern that its actually an a lot slower card.

At least for oem's it was supposed to be called 560d.
Posted on Reply
#8
bug
Vya Domus said:
They did have a separate name for the 896 shaders variant though and virtually none of the manufacturers used it. So the fault lies in both.
You're probably referring to 560D, which has never made an appearance on the official site. amd.com simply lists 560 as having "896/1024" shaders. And no 560D.
Though truth be told, whoever buys this low end isn't very likely to care about specs at all.
Posted on Reply
#9
RejZoR
I don't get it why can't they just use the "Lite" or "LE" naming scheme. We all know what it means.
Posted on Reply
#10
EarthDog
bug said:
You're probably referring to 560D, which has never made an appearance on the official site. amd.com simply lists 560 as having "896/1024" shaders. And no 560D.
Though truth be told, whoever buys this low end isn't very likely to care about specs at all.
The 560d was supposed to be a low cost variant in asia as well as for mining.

And while many users who buy these cards wont know specs (do many anyway, really?), they will surely believe 560 is better than 460 as, generally, this is how it works.

This is not good. We can blame the board partners, but it seems there is a lack of 'institutional control' in that 560D name not making it out. If amd doesnt discern between the cards in their website, i can understand why partners didnt change it either.
Posted on Reply
#11
Assimilator
I can't see any good reason for AMD to do this. Do they want a lawsuit? Just name the 896SP variant "RX 550" FFS, problem solved.
Posted on Reply
#12
Vya Domus
Yet again AMD is blamed for the greed of AIBs and their piss poor marketing and naming schemes.
Posted on Reply
#13
EarthDog
I mean, when its their fault...they dont even discern between the two on their website. How is this the board partners fault (only)? And why would we rely on them for being a moral compass??

Its like a damn loot crate!!! Never know what you'll get!
Posted on Reply
#14
Vya Domus
EarthDog said:
How is this the board partners fault (only)?
Because this happened before with the 470 and that went fine since they didn't really make their way outside Asia with the exception of those mining versions. You really think AMD has full control over to where these cards are sold ? You can just buy them bulk and sell them off Amazon/Ebay.

AIBs obviously knew this happens and they still didn't make a clear distinction between them.
Posted on Reply
#15
Hood
Vya Domus said:
Yet again AMD is blamed for the greed of AIBs and their piss poor marketing and naming schemes.
Maybe because their own website product page is ambiguous about shader counts? Could THAT be the reason AMD is getting blame? If AMD themselves won't differentiate, why would the partners? This whole fiasco smells bad...
Posted on Reply
#16
EarthDog
AIBs are at fault too, but, agaun, AMD didnt call it something else themselves. The OP shows the amd website. What about when buying reference cards not named different? Is that the AIBs fault too?

The source of this problem is AMD. Because their partners went along with it doesnt absolve AMD of creating the problem in the first place.

Again.. 560s are now loot crates. Scary.
Posted on Reply
#17
bug
EarthDog said:
The 560d was supposed to be a low cost variant in asia as well as for mining.

And while many users who buy these cards wont know specs (do many anyway, really?), they will surely believe 560 is better than 460 as, generally, this is how it works.

This is not good. We can blame the board partners, but it seems there is a lack of 'institutional control' in that 560D name not making it out. If amd doesnt discern between the cards in their website, i can understand why partners didnt change it either.
I don't think this is confusing at all. Isn't 580 a rebrand of 480?
Hell, looking back at AMD's history, I thik they may actually have more rebrands than new releases altogether.
Posted on Reply
#18
Vya Domus
EarthDog said:
AMD didnt call it something else themselves.
Yes they are , just how there's a 470D they named this one 560D.

http://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/vga/introduction.php?S_ID=236

How could Biostar specify this a 470D but others can't do the same for the 560 ? It's AMD at fault ?

You know , it's funny I just remembered how there are 2 1060s on the market with the exact same name as well but somehow anything associated with Nvidia gets a pass while similar happenings turn AMD into a shady ass company . :)
Posted on Reply
#19
bug
Vya Domus said:
Yes they are , just how there's a 470D they named this one 560D.

http://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/vga/introduction.php?S_ID=236

How could Biostar specify this a 470D but others can't do the same for the 560 ? It's AMD at fault ?

You know , it's funny I just remembered how there are 2 1060s on the market with the exact same name as well but somehow anything associated with Nvidia gets a pass while similar happenings turn AMD into a shady ass company . :)
Lol, you're arguing that AMD made a clear distinction with a link to Biostar's website? That's rich.
Posted on Reply
#20
EarthDog
Vya Domus said:
Yes they are , just how there's a 470D they named this one 560D.

http://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/vga/introduction.php?S_ID=236

How could Biostar specify this a 470D but others can't do the same for the 560 ? It's AMD at fault ?

You know , it's funny I just remembered how there are 2 1060s on the market with the exact same name as well but somehow anything associated with Nvidia gets a pass while similar happenings turn AMD into a shady ass company . :)
Sorry Vya, we are talking 560 here bud. Kudos to Biostar though on that last gen card. As well as AMD for actually putting out an explicit specification and name of the 470D, unlike this situation. That supports my point though... if AMD names it properly AIBs will follow... or at least Biostar. Not sure if anyone else put out a 470D.... ;)

I never heard of the 470D in the past, because, well, it wasn't released in the states. It IS a different card with a different name. In the case of the, 570D AMD didn't seem to specify (see the first post, see post 16), and consequently, neither did the AIBs. So we have a problem. These seem to be in more places than that now(?)...

As far as the 1060's, no idea on that outside of a 3GB and 6GB version. But let's stop using straw man tactics and stick to the point....NVIDIA and their shady practices are not the issue here.

The point:

AMD did not discern between these distinctly different models. Because of this, both AMD in their reference/oem cards and the AIBs with their cards, we have what I am coining as "loot crate" GPUs. EVERYONE could have been better in this situation, I certainly agree. However its more than clear where this started and it isn't with the AIBs.
Posted on Reply
#21
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
Shrinkflation. Just like at the supermarkets.
Posted on Reply
#22
Sasqui
Disturbing. They should have called the original the Radeon RX 560 Ti :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#23
Vya Domus
EarthDog said:

AMD did not discern between these distinctly different models.
Yes they do , come on man you realize how non nonsensical that is ? You think they ship these chips in surprise kinder eggs ? And the AIBs just randomly throw them on cards ?

Even TPU's database makes a clear distinction , not only between the name but also the actual core variant : Polaris 21 XL and Polaris 21 XT.

You just don't want to accept the fact that this has been done before in the exact same fashion with the only exception being that, now, AIBs didn't do their job properly (intentionally or not).

EarthDog said:
NVIDIA and their shady practices are not the issue here.
It never is , I know. ;)

EarthDog said:
But let's stop using straw man tactics and stick to the point...
Right , let's not focus on the same thing Nvidia and it's board partners did and focus instead on AMD , because somehow that's more important and relevant. Gotcha , I'm not gonna mention it again. :)
Posted on Reply
#24
EarthDog
Vya Domus said:
Yes they do , come on man you realize how non nonsensical that is ? You think they ship these chips in surprise kinder eggs ? And the AIBs just randomly throw them on cards ?
They didn't do it on their website. TPUs database was likely based off the numerous articles posting about it way back in June/July timeframe. I mean, clearly it is NOT on the AMD website (as a 560D).

Vya Domus said:
You just don't want to accept the fact that this has been done before in the exact same fashion with the only exception being that, now, AIBs didn't do their job properly (intentionally or not).
And you may have missed what I posted. AMD put up specifications for a 470D on the website... an AIB that made them, followed. This go around, there is NO DISTINCTION between a 560 and 560D. See the posts I referenced earlier which are directly from the AMD website.
Vya Domus said:
It never is , I know. ;)
This isn't the place. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH NVIDIA.

Vya Domus said:
Right , let's not focus on the same thing Nvidia and it's board partners did and focus instead on AMD
Right. This is about the 560 and has NOTHING to do with NVIDIA. Take your scarecrow out of the fields as it's not scaring anything away with bringing up a completely unrelated topic.

Understand, I am not the one who brought up the 470D which DOES IN FACT HAVE A CLEAR ENTRY ON AMD's website. So, the 470D isn't the issue here. They did that right. Here, they do NOT have an entry for the 560D. Its just a 560 with two different sets of specs. Because of this, the reference 560 and the AIBs apparent willingness to run with it, they are loot crate GPUs. Again, I am not absolving the AIBs part in this for propagating the issue, however, it is clear the source of the ambiguity is from AMD.
Posted on Reply
#25
Vya Domus
Only thing that I can blame AMD for is that they didn't police the AIBs better to make sure they market these things appropriately. But then again that's not really their job.

As far as I am concerned AIBs have engaged in false advertising tactics without doubt.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment