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
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
EarthDog said:
And there is the crux of the situation... will the US see the "D"? So far it doesn't appear to be so. Hopefully AMD corrects their botched entry and the AIBs get on board.
the MSI RX 560 AERO ITX OC
is OC'd to 1196 Boost when the base clock for real 560 is 1175 and 1275 boost

i see msi fooled everyone but me, and HIS and everyone else lol
Posted on Reply
#2
Vya Domus
T4C Fantasy said:
my point is Specs, Device ID with Revision ID is 560D
its a 560D :)
You better read again the whole thread carefully because my whole point was that these cards are in fact 560D and all of these manufacturers failed to market them properly outside of Asia so you didn't know that it was in fact a 560 that you were buying.

Pay more attention to what is being discussed before you start calling me a 'noob' because off to the ignore list you'll go.
Posted on Reply
#3
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
they
Vya Domus said:
You better read again the whole thread carefully because my whole point was that these cards are in fact 560D and all of these manufacturers failed to market them properly outside of Asia so you didn't know that it was in fact a 560 that you were buying.

Pay more attention to what is being discussed before you start calling me a 'noob' because off to the ignore list you'll go.
Ignore me all you want, you said 3 manufacturers has a 560D... 7 do... name or not

"virtually no manufacturer made a 560D"
Posted on Reply
#4
Vya Domus
T4C Fantasy said:
you said 3 manufacturers has a 560D... 7 do... name or not
I'm not even going to bother deciphering whatever you tried to say with that but it's clear to me you jumped into the discussion while having absolutely no idea what is going on.

T4C Fantasy said:

"virtually no manufacturer made a 560D"
Never said that , what I did say is that they didn't used the proper name for them. Wow mate , I thought it was just a misunderstanding but your reading comprehension really is atrocious. Either that or you're trying to troll me , regardless I wasted enough time talking to you.
Posted on Reply
#5
danbert2000
T4C Fantasy said:
they

Ignore me all you want, you said 3 manufacturers has a 560D... 7 do... name or not

"virtually no manufacturer made a 560D"
Nobody cares about your nerdy DB entries. The real fact of it is that US manufacturers aren't adding the D because AMD hasn't distinguished between the two in their specifications. Even if there is a different device ID, the consumer will have no idea what version they are getting, with 896 or 1024 shaders. At least Nvidia lets you know explicitly that the 1060 3GB will be cut down, and the 1060 6GB has the full shader complement.

Here's an Amazon search for your mythic 560D:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=RX+560D&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3ARX+560D&tag=tec06d-20

Here's one for 560. Can you tell me which ones have 896 shaders and which ones have 1024? If not, then blame AMD who is shipping these different cuts of chips to the manufacturers, all as "560"
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=RX+560&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3ARX+560&tag=tec06d-20
Posted on Reply
#6
chr0nos
May it be a simple error or miscommunication, all the ones that quickly jump to the hate wagon on AMD is a sad statement of the community.

At least ASUS does show how many shaders the card has so u know what to look for, MSI being shady doesnt say anything about sp's on their web.

ASUS RX560 1024 sp
ASUS RX560 "EVO" 896 sp

EDIT: Also considering how easy is to return a card if not the desired one, is just silly how much complaining is going on here
Posted on Reply
#7
EarthDog
Entirely possible it is a mistake. If it was, I would expect to hear from them soon and the specs page updated...

But, where does ASUS discern the SPs? I don't see it on the box... You have to dig down to the specs on the webpage, no?

EDIT: Yeah, also a good point, I mean, good thing we can return it when we get ripped off by AMD and its AIBs for whatever reason we are getting ripped off. (that was sarcastic, btw). The point isn't about the ability to easily return (awwwww shucks, they got me, derp), but the fact that there is misleading information out there.

Anyway, if it really was a mistake, why hasn't AMD come out and said hey, MSI/ASUS/Whomever, its a 560D... please update? These cards have been out for a few months... its not like they are new and this is the first time they are seeing it. Clearly it looks bad as is, so I really do not understand why a statement hasn't been made, at least to AIBs, and the offending misinformation updated over these lasts months.
Posted on Reply
#8
Vya Domus
chr0nos said:


EDIT: Also considering how easy is to return a card if not the desired one, is just silly how much complaining is going on here
Well it is easy but it wont matter if you don't know about it. People don't pay attention to these details they just see the numbers in the name.

EDIT : Weird how we are concerned about the people who aren't tech savvy when these things don't affect us at all. :)
Posted on Reply
#9
chr0nos
EarthDog said:
Entirely possible it is a mistake. If it was, I would expect to hear from them soon and the specs page updated...

But, where does ASUS discern the SPs? I don't see it on the box... You have to dig down to the specs on the webpage, no?

EDIT: Yeah, also a good point, I mean, good thing we can return it when we get ripped off by AMD and its AIBs for whatever reason we are getting ripped off. (that was sarcastic, btw). The point isn't about the ability to easily return (awwwww shucks, they got me, derp), but the fact that there is misleading information out there.

Anyway, if it really was a mistake, why hasn't AMD come out and said hey, MSI/ASUS/Whomever, its a 560D... please update? These cards have been out for a few months... its not like they are new and this is the first time they are seeing it.
Asus ones are named RX560 EVO (896sp), non EVO versions are 1024sp, took me 2 minutes to find out....
Posted on Reply
#10
EarthDog
Ok, I will take the time to look where you are seeing this again.......I appreciate you taking the time to link what you are seeing.

Newegg - It doesn't have it in the title/name, but the SP count is listed as a feature like it does on most(all?) other cards AMD/NVIDIA.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814126222&cm_re=asus_560-_-14-126-222-_-Product

Amazon - It doesn't mention it all all
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07661CXT2/?tag=tec06d-20

ASUS website - Not at the asus website either (not in the name as you said, but in the specs)
https://www.asus.com/us/Graphics-Cards/ROG-STRIX-RX560-O4G-EVO-GAMING/
https://www.asus.com/us/Graphics-Cards/RX560-O4G-EVO/


Ill bite.. where do you see it named that?

EDIT:
chr0nos said:
MSI being shady doesnt say anything about sp's on their web.
Is it possible the database at TPU is wrong calling 560 Aero a 896 SP card? it has the clocks of the full version...

EDIt2: Another consideration is, do you see the SP/CUDA cores listed in MSI's other cards? I didn't check, but a random GTX 1080 and it doesn't have it either... so... conspiracy or normal? Is the database correct? Or is it right?? These two show 1024 for example...
http://www.game-debate.com/hardware/index.php?gid=3980&graphics=Radeon RX 560 MSI Aero ITX OC 4GB
https://techreport.com/news/31944/msi-debuts-slot-powered-radeon-rx-560-aero-itx-oc-cards

So... db here wrong somehow (doubtful as its a GPU-z dump, right?)? Are they really "shady" if they don't show the SP/CUDA count on their other cards either? Just something to think about.

@T4C Fantasy
T4C Fantasy said:
i see msi fooled everyone but me, and HIS and everyone else lol
Fooled you? Doesn't your DB get added by GPUz submissions??? So, wasn't the data in the dump?
Posted on Reply
#11
Midland Dog
Vya Domus said:
Yet again AMD is blamed for the greed of AIBs and their piss poor marketing and naming schemes.
yet when nvidia aibs put 4gb on every single 970 box it was automatically nvidias fault, but wait there was actually still 4gb
Posted on Reply
#12
Vya Domus
Midland Dog said:
yet when nvidia aibs put 4gb on every single 970 box it was automatically nvidias fault, but wait there was actually still 4gb
If you would have done some research you would find out that the GPU was a cut down core of the 980 in such a way that it would only accept that particular memory subsystem. Clearly an international design by Nvidia , not by AIBs as they don't have access to those things. They literally couldn't build it in any other way.

The card was listed as having 4GB GDDR5 everywhere , including on Nvidia's website (it still is funnily enough). So both of them were at fault , much more so Nvidia since they completely obscured that aspect of it's specifications.

But just as always we look at things superficially.
Posted on Reply
#14
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
EarthDog said:
Ok, I will take the time to look where you are seeing this again.......I appreciate you taking the time to link what you are seeing.

Newegg - It doesn't have it in the title/name, but the SP count is listed as a feature like it does on most(all?) other cards AMD/NVIDIA.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814126222&cm_re=asus_560-_-14-126-222-_-Product

Amazon - It doesn't mention it all all
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07661CXT2/?tag=tec06d-20

ASUS website - Not at the asus website either (not in the name as you said, but in the specs)
https://www.asus.com/us/Graphics-Cards/ROG-STRIX-RX560-O4G-EVO-GAMING/
https://www.asus.com/us/Graphics-Cards/RX560-O4G-EVO/


Ill bite.. where do you see it named that?

EDIT:

Is it possible the database at TPU is wrong calling 560 Aero a 896 SP card? it has the clocks of the full version...

EDIt2: Another consideration is, do you see the SP/CUDA cores listed in MSI's other cards? I didn't check, but a random GTX 1080 and it doesn't have it either... so... conspiracy or normal? Is the database correct? Or is it right?? These two show 1024 for example...
http://www.game-debate.com/hardware/index.php?gid=3980&graphics=Radeon RX 560 MSI Aero ITX OC 4GB
https://techreport.com/news/31944/msi-debuts-slot-powered-radeon-rx-560-aero-itx-oc-cards

So... db here wrong somehow (doubtful as its a GPU-z dump, right?)? Are they really "shady" if they don't show the SP/CUDA count on their other cards either? Just something to think about.

@T4C Fantasy Fooled you? Doesn't your DB get added by GPUz submissions??? So, wasn't the data in the dump?
no i said it didnt fool me

and i knew these 560s and 560D and since that amazon the clock speed 1196 is 560D

i didn't need gpuz dumps in other words
Posted on Reply
#15
EarthDog
Huburis aside...what i am asking is how is the db data entered? Automatically by a gpuz dump?
Posted on Reply
#16
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
EarthDog said:
Huburis aside...what i am asking is how is the db data entered? Automatically by a gpuz dump?
its done manually because gpuz entering in false enteries in db is a bad idea, gpu db is way more accurate
Posted on Reply
#17
EarthDog
Ok... was just wondering what the source of that msi card is. Its likely that multiple news sources are in error, but curious to see the dump file from it.

I believe the 1196 clocks are regular 560 while the d is lower at 1106? Cant go by clocks though.
Posted on Reply
#18
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
EarthDog said:
Ok... was just wondering what the source of that msi card is. Its likely that multiple news sources are in error, but curious to see the dump file from it.

I believe the 1196 clocks are regular 560 while the d is lower at 1106? Cant go by clocks though.
no the boost for normal is 1275, for D is 1175, and 1196 is OC of D

with these skus you can go by clocks

https://www.msi.com/Graphics-card/Radeon-RX-560-AERO-ITX-4G-OC.html <--560D

its not wrong
Posted on Reply
#19
Athlonite
bug said:
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.
Technically yes it is but both cards have the same shader count and ram amount but they upgraded the power to 2x8pin and increased the core/mem clocks
Posted on Reply
#21
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
EarthDog said:
Sorry if I missed it, but where does it show 892 cores there? All I see are the actual 560 clocks, not lowered 560D clocks and no mention of SP.
Thise are not 560 clocks those are OCd 560D clocks. Like i said normal 560 is 1175-1275, 560D 1090-1175
Posted on Reply
#22
EarthDog
Where does it show that MSI card has the lower SP count?
Posted on Reply
#23
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
EarthDog said:
Where does it show that MSI card has the lower SP count?
It doesnt need to it says its oc-d belower default 560s and ocd above 560d
Posted on Reply
#24
EarthDog
Sure it does... there are 560's clocked like that. So if that is true, how can one simply go by clocks?

I honestly don't know what to believe. There are exceptions to what you are saying in this list...

https://videocardz.net/gigabyte-radeon-rx-560-4gb-oc/

The giga card and asus 560 both run at "560D" speeds, but arent 560Ds(right?).

Is there a card in that list with the clocks you state show 56/14 setup?

EDIT: This Sapphire boosts to 1226, not 1275... while the 560 boosts higher to 1300 Mhz
http://www.sapphiretech.com/productdetial.asp?pid=3ECEAD87-2972-477A-A3BE-480194D9FD6E&lang=eng
Posted on Reply
#25
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
EarthDog said:
Sure it does... there are 560's clocked like that. So if that is true, how can one simply go by clocks?

I honestly don't know what to believe. There are exceptions to what you are saying in this list...

https://videocardz.net/gigabyte-radeon-rx-560-4gb-oc/

The giga card and asus 560 both run at "560D" speeds, but arent 560Ds(right?).

Is there a card in that list showing 56/14 setup?
show me 1 560 "OC" to 1196 and ill prove its 560D

videocardz is wrong, i laughed at it it says BOOST clock 1275

BOOST clock for 560 is 1275 DEFAULT
Radeon RX 560 AERO ITX 4G OC
  • Boost Clock / Memory Frequency
    1196 MHz / 7000 MHz
that gigabyte is base clock OCs still 1275 boost :p

use tpu db if you want accuracy

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2990/radeon-rx-560d

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2940/radeon-rx-560
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment