Difference between AMD R* ***X vs R* ***?

[muscle_man]

What is the difference between AMD R* ***X vs R* ***?

I am planing on building a mid range gaming PC, and was wondering which one would be more suitable for me.

[Tim Drake]

Em..

 

Is your keyboard broke?

[Guest]

things with an "X" after it are a bit more powerful.

[joshmcd]

My 2 favourite GPU's

[Humbug]

The difference depends on the two specific cards you are comparing. In general the x version is a bit more powerful and expensive.

[Goodman2265]

What is the difference between AMD R* ***X vs R* ***?

I am planing on building a mid range gaming PC, and was wondering which one would be more suitable for me.

When you refer to the GPUs you say it like this

R9 2-- or R9 2--X

Thats how I was tought

[grayblizzard]

What is the difference between AMD R* ***X vs R* ***?

I am planing on building a mid range gaming PC, and was wondering which one would be more suitable for me.

GO FOR AN R9 390 as 390x isnt worth price difference everything else either doesnt have x variant or is not appropriate in midrange build

[Satan]

The X's tend to provide a better performance. Similar to nVidia's GTX*** compared to a GTX ***Ti

[NicekillBG]

***********************************************

[Hman1250]

The "X" just means the card was just overclocked

[arvark]

The "X" just means the card was just overclocked

No. Only with 270 series.

[Knaj]

The X versions are basically just an upgraded version of the non-X card

[arvark]

The X versions are basically just an upgraded version of the non-X card

What?

 

X versions have come Stream Processors.

[LIGISTX]

Long story short, you probably shouldn't spend the money on the "X". The non "X" is typically 10-15% slower, but costs a bunch more, sometimes up to 30% more. If you are looking for all out power, sure the "X" is the answer, but for price to performance, the non "X" is typically the way to go.

 

But for a more detailed answer, list your build and intended use as well as budget

[arvark]

Long story short, you probably shouldn't spend the money on the "X". The non "X" is typically 10-15% slower, but costs a bunch LESS, sometimes up to 30% LESS. If you are looking for all out power, sure the "X" is the answer, but for price to performance, the non "X" is typically the way to go.

 

But for a more detailed answer, list your build and intended use as well as budget

Fix'd.

[Briggsy]

X is the full chip, non-x chips are mildly defective and cut down at a reduced price and reduced performance.

 

Nvidia do the same thing, but their naming scheme is all over the place. a 970 is a cut down 980, a 980ti is a cut down TitanX, a 780 is a cut down 780ti, and a 660ti and 670 are both cut down 680's.

[PudgyAstronaut]

When you refer to the GPUs you say it like this

R9 2-- or R9 2--X

Thats how I was tought

 

I have also seen X used like R9 2XX, but that doesn't really allow you to imply X variants without looking stupid (R9 2XXX?) but it works for general discussions of an entire product cycle too like i5-4XXX

[Ryoutarou97]

X is the full chip, non-x chips are mildly defective and cut down at a reduced price and reduced performance.

 

Nvidia do the same thing, but their naming scheme is all over the place. a 970 is a cut down 980, a 980ti is a cut down TitanX, a 780 is a cut down 780ti, and a 660ti and 670 are both cut down 680's.

I think this post is a bit misleading. It's not to say that the chip is broken because it's defective, just that not as much of it works. As I understand it, Nvidia only has 2 different cores in their recent lineup, GM-204 and GM-200. GM-204 is the one that's used in 960, 970, and 980. GM-200 is the Titan-X and 980ti. Every GM-204 chip, for example, is made the same way, but with literally billions of transistors, they don't all turn out that well. So they're tested to see how good of a chip it is. The best ones are made into 980's. The ones that aren't good enough for that have a few chunks disabled leaving a lower core count than a 980 and become a 970. Worse than that they become 960's. GM-200 works pretty much the same. The best of the best become Titan-X's and the worse ones are 980ti's.

 

The lower the chip standard, the higher the yield is. So if the 960 were the standard for the best card then every chip that is that good or better (all 960's, 970's, and 980's) would be acceptable. If the 970 were the best card, the standard and performance of the card are higher, but the yields are lower. 

 

AMD releases a lot of cards, so you have a lot of choice for where on the price spectrum you want to buy. A core that's not good enough for a 970 doesn't just get binned as a 960, if it's better than a 960 standard core it can get placed in between (to be clear, I'm using Nvidia card as analogy- they are not the same core). You don't really have to choose between 960 for the price and 970 for performance because there's a card in the middle that fits your price point.

 

TL;DR:

The x version is just a card between the 2_0 and the 2(_+1)0 that has no extra features that the others don't. 

[arvark]

I think this post is a bit misleading. It's not to say that the chip is broken because it's defective, just that not as much of it works. As I understand it, Nvidia only has 2 different cores in their recent lineup, GM-204 and GM-200. GM-204 is the one that's used in 960, 970, and 980. GM-200 is the Titan-X and 980ti. Every GM-204 chip, for example, is made the same way, but with literally billions of transistors, they don't all turn out that well. So they're tested to see how good of a chip it is. The best ones are made into 980's. The ones that aren't good enough for that have a few chunks disabled leaving a lower core count than a 980 and become a 970. Worse than that they become 960's. GM-200 works pretty much the same. The best of the best become Titan-X's and the worse ones are 980ti's.

 

The lower the chip standard, the higher the yield is. So if the 960 were the standard for the best card then every chip that is that good or better (all 960's, 970's, and 980's) would be acceptable. If the 970 were the best card, the standard and performance of the card are higher, but the yields are lower. 

 

AMD releases a lot of cards, so you have a lot of choice for where on the price spectrum you want to buy. A core that's not good enough for a 970 doesn't just get binned as a 960, if it's better than a 960 standard core it can get placed in between (to be clear, I'm using Nvidia card as analogy- they are not the same core). You don't really have to choose between 960 for the price and 970 for performance because there's a card in the middle that fits your price point.

 

TL;DR:

The x version is just a card between the 2_0 and the 2(_+1)0 that has no extra features that the others don't. 

GTX 960 uses GM 206 Core, 970-80 use GM 204.

[Briggsy]

-snip-

 

the 960 is actually the GM206. 

 

I don't think I'm being misleading. Instead of AMD or Nvidia tossing out chips that have some defective transistors, they lock those transistors out (and then some) and sell the card as the non-X (for AMD), or the next tier down (for Nvidia) to offset imperfect yields.

[Ryoutarou97]

the 960 is actually the GM206. 

 

I don't think I'm being misleading. Instead of AMD or Nvidia tossing out chips that have some defective transistors, they lock those transistors out (and then some) and sell the card as the non-X (for AMD), or the next tier down (for Nvidia) to offset imperfect yields.

I didn't mean intentionally misleading, just that someone who is looking at this for the first time sees that non-x versions are slightly defective might think there was something wrong with it.

[Ryoutarou97]

GTX 960 uses GM 206 Core, 970-80 use GM 204.

I stand corrected. In the first draft of this post I had a disclaimer about maybe being wrong about bits, but figured that I should stop always doubting myself and that it was probably alright.     ;-;

[Sakkura]

Many of the cut-down chips actually weren't defective. They just cut them down to meet demand and maintain their product lineup. This is why it has been possible to unlock cards to the higher-perfoming variant in the past (like a 6950 to a 6970; the -50 and -70 denoted the same thing as the -X does now). Today they prevent that by laser-cutting the die.

[Briggsy]

Many of the cut-down chips actually weren't defective. They just cut them down to meet demand and maintain their product lineup. This is why it has been possible to unlock cards to the higher-perfoming variant in the past (like a 6950 to a 6970; the -50 and -70 denoted the same thing as the -X does now). Today they prevent that by laser-cutting the die.

 

This is also very true. AMD were often known to only lock out transistors through firmware. Heck, some cards like the 270 aren't even cut down, but just binned for lower clocks. I loved the reaction of reviewers for the 270.

[Nena Trinity]

GO FOR AN R9 390 as 390x isnt worth price difference everything else either doesnt have x variant or is not appropriate in midrange build

390X is more worth it than 980 is it not?