Vya Domus Yes they are , just how there's a 470D they named this one 560D.



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.