Cheapest I've seen in a long time. Delivery seems to be from $10 to $18.
Deal is part of Click Frenzy Mayhem. https://www.computeralliance.com.au/click-frenzy-mayhem-live…
https://www.msi.com/Graphics-card/Radeon-RX-580-ARMOR-8G-OC.…
MSI Radeon RX 580 ARMOR 8G OC $399 + Delivery or Free Brisbane Pickup @ Computer Alliance
520
HomeAlone on 16/05/2018 - 12:43 computeralliance.com.au (998 clicks)
Last edited 16/05/2018 - 13:10 by 1 other user
Last edited 16/05/2018 - 13:10 by 1 other user
Related Stores
closed Comments
Yeah. UserBenchmarks.com shows it doing 2200 MB/s read and 1110 MB/s write.
As an owner of one, yeah it's nice to see those numbers in benchmarking software, but in the real world it makes hardly any difference over a good SATA3 SSD.
I suppose if you have two of them and just sequentially write backwards and forwards it would be awesome, but the speed is just lost at the moment with nothing really able to take advantage apart from really niche stuff.
The best thing about NVMe is how easy they are to install and not have to worry about cables.
Is it possible that 3 year old Desktop ( 4th gen i5 and dont rememeber the MB and I know it is a feature of MB) will have NVMe slot? Graphics card are on PCIe slots? Oh man, hardware changing too frequently to know all terms now.
H97,Z97 boards may have the M.2 slot and boot from NVMe but you won't obtain full performance (still faster than a standard SATA3 drive though) from the drive once you install & use a PCI-e 16x GPU (PCI-e lane limitations of the chipset).
Older H87,Z87 chipset boards didn't normally come with a M.2 slot, and don't support booting from NVMe as the damn manufacturer's didn't retroactively add support.
@xuqi: Thanks. Really useful information. I Will check my board model and see if I can get something.
On boards without a M.2 slot you could use something like the card below (or generic variants sold online), but with limitations listed above:
https://www.asus.com/au/Motherboard-Accessory/HYPER_M2_X4_MI…
Slightly older / physically larger variant of the card:
https://www.techpowerup.com/201748/asus-unveils-hyper-m-2-x4…
it makes hardly any difference
That's just simply untrue as you can easily find out by watching youtube side by sides or timing your own drives.
It makes a large difference.
@Diji1: No, it doesn't. The 2200 / 1100 are sequential read / write speed, which means that to really achieve that speed, you either need to have another m.2 NVMe SSD that's as fast or a RAM drive. In real life, that's not realistic for most people (unless it is a work PC setup where you have multiple NVMe SSDs). Furthermore, it is mostly a marketing trick from SSD makers. That speed is the SLC cache speed, once that's exhausted, there is no way a TLC flash can go that fast currently (if TLC flash is capable of doing that, then there is no need to have SLC cache).
Below is what I extracted from https://www.pcauthority.com.au/review/review-samsung-960-evo… :
The 250GB model maxes out at 1,500MB/sec write and drops precipitously to 300MB/sec after 13GB has been written.So the true TLC sequential write speed of this drive is 300MB/sec (and that's as expected).
I have 950 Pro NVMe SSDs (those are MLC based NVMe SSDs). While I can get top notch sequential speed using benchmark software, the real life speed isn't like that. Again, the quoted sequential read/write speed is SLC cache speed. Windows 10 does NOT boot up 2-3 times faster (no way; not if you compared to a proper / decent MLC SATA3 drive; it is at best 1 second better). Random read/write speed is more important to most people. In sustained write situation, this 960 Evo TLC SSD won't be able to beat a proper MLC SSD (even with SATA3).
Don't get all excited about quoted sequential read/write speed, unless you have multiple NVMe SSDs or RAID SSD setup. The TLC SSDs are still limited by their true inferior speed to MLC once the SLC cache is exhausted.
The earlier NVMe M.2 drives also suffer from heat issues and will throttle at some point. This has been addressed on the newer generation 960 Pro drives.
Personally I prefer & use 800GB - 1.2TB Intel 750 PCI-E and U2 drives which whilst more expensive, suffer none of the issues plaguing other drives. They cost much more to buy if you can still find deals if you look around.
@xuqi: Re-checked. I have 960 Pro SSDs, but my understanding is that they will still throttle, just a bit later (they have a slightly better heat spreader compared to previous gen). It also explains why these 960 EVO SSDs are well priced. 970 series already announced, time to clear existing stock.
Yes, for desktops, PCI-E and U2 are certainly better because they don't suffer the heat issue due to limited area like m.2 or mSATA and also most of those SSDs are optimised for business and heavy IOs. For general public, I think SATA3 is enough. I've gone for m.2 mainly because I have ITX/NUC setup (limited space).
Main point is don't buy into the hype of the quoted sequential speed. It's the actual flash memory that matters. That includes PCI-E and U2 SSDs as well.
Will only be as quick as the controller. Might be your motherboard is lacking
Thank you. I haven't had the time, carefactor or balls to speak up in these 250GB 960 evo threads about how slow these drives are. I know more about NAND, controllers and the SSDs they make then I would like to admit to anyone.
Anything but copying bluray movies back and forward and this SSD and it is actually probably one of the the slowest "high-end" ssd on the market. I know you don't want to hear it and im sorry, but you get what you pay for.
The 500 and certainly the 1TB are considerably faster, actually 2 & 4 times faster in some metrics. They are not bad drives at all, though even they can often be bettered by real MLC NAND, the 1TB can certainly hold its own though unless under serious load.512GB 970 Pro on Amazon for $250US at the moment, now THAT is a deal and a fast ssd!
Already have some spare MLC based 950/960 pros but I couldnt help myself last night ;)
oh damn that's a pretty good price, are prices finally coming down?
I think crypto is getting saturated, so people are finding their returns diminish compared to their electricity bill.
On top of that Nvidia is getting ready to release their new graphics cards. Though I think they will be playing it safe this time.The new ones aren't that much of an improvement (12nm vs 16nm), and just a grade above*, ie:
GTX 1180 ~ GTX 1080 Ti
GTX 1170 ~ GTX 1070 Ti
GTX 1160 ~ GTX 1070
GTX 1150 ~ GTX 1050 Ti
…this makes the AMD RX470-580 cards look uncompetitive :(*at least based on all the leaks we've so far.
It will be interesting to see what prices the new cards are released at
Its all speculative but keith from WCCTech reckons the 1170 will be a smidge below the 1080ti in this video.
Interesting take.
Pascal architecture is basically Maxwell (28nm) but instead based on 16nm lithography. I think the 11-series Turing will actually be more of the same, so it will be Maxwell on 12nm lithography. So we should see similar/expected gains in performance of frequency increases and larger CUDA core counts. However, the jump from 28nm to 16nm was a large jump in process… the jump from 16nm to 12nm is much smaller. So we shouldn't see as big gains. The 10-series managed an improvement of two-grade increase, hence why I think Keith is mistaken here. The biggest gains will probably be at the midrange as the extra bandwidth from the memory system will make a decent improvement. The GTX 1160 should be plenty fast, probably faster and more efficient than the GTX 1070/980Ti… following the midrange, the top-end segment GTX 1180 should have the next biggest improvement (GTX 1180 = GTX 1080 Ti)… and lastly the low-power segment should see the smallest gains as efficiency is a fickle as a GTX 1150 will struggle to keep up with the GTX 1050 Ti.Basically its like this:
______________ < GTX6 (80) = GTX7 (70) = GTX9 (60) ~ GTX10 (50) < __________
______________ < _________ = __________ < GTX9 (80 Ti) = GTX10 (70) = GTX11 (60)
Fermi 40nm -> Keppler 28nm -> Keppler 28nm -> Maxwell 28nm -> Maxwell 16nm -> Maxwell 12nm -> New-Rastarizer 7nm (?)AMD has a slower and more gradual advancement compared to Nvidia, its quite obvious the extra R&D pays off from an efficiency and top-end performance viewpoint.
Ayy, I got this Graphics Card.
Costed $410 on FUTU_ONLINE Ebay
dont forget the Cashrewards :)
They’re coming down, but they’re still well over priced compared to when they first came out, plus you now have an aged 1 year and 600 series cards are around the corner. Not really a deal when you consider these factors, but it’s the best price available atm in this over priced market.
Good to see computer alliance dropping the prices. These guys are generally good.
this is a good analysis of the current situation!
Source on the 600 series? Haven't seen anyone positing that AMD was releasing anything this year (apart from mobile Vega)
Upgrade from a gtx 1060 3gb?
Yup. And better for the future too. 3gb isn't going to cut it much longer.
It's not that simple. It's about as close to a sidegrade as an upgrade.
First is that Nvidia texture memory compression is significantly better than AMD so that 3GB = 4GB of AMD, the second is that they are actually pretty closely matched which is very weird considering a 1060 3GB is roughly half the price of a 8GB 580 and uses 2 thirds of the electricity power to do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wgXEu_BY7M
This is the first time in a long time that a 8GB 580 is cheaper than a 6GB 1060 though, which possibly says a lot about the future state of GPU crypto mining (that it might be over soon, hopefully?).
EDIT: To the downvoter, have you got something of substance to debate the point or just offended with truth?
dw i upvoted ya. This was a good read!
Probably downvoted by miners.
Meh, won't see a big difference unless your maxing out the VRAM on the card, which result in dropped frames.
If you had a 6gb 1060 you'd be fine.
A 1070 would be a much more noticeable upgrade.
No, it would be a silly upgrade, the difference is less than 15%. You can sell your card with approx 200 aud, you have to add 200 AUD to get a very small upgrade.
Nope, don't bother upgrading to this unless you have a 1080p freesync panel.
The 580 is getting older, but it's still one of the best bang for your buck for 1080p gaming. I have the Gigabyte version and it plays everything really well in 1080p. Plus good high refresh 1080p monitors with Freesync are quite cheap these days.
everything really well at 1080p??? my R290 still plays everything really well (60fps) at 1080p
Same. Though few graphic settings need to be done in high to medium
R9 290 ~= RX 470 ~= RX 570 (minus a little), so makes sense. Obviously depends on the game but generally speaking an R9 290 is similar to an RX 470, while a 290X is similar to an RX 480.
How does this compare to my 3gb 1060?
See above
probably very similar
1060 6gb > rx580 > 1060 3gb
but the difference is very small, less than 10% I think.Yes, that is the correct order for older DX11 games, but DX12 games, it goes rx580 8GB > 1060 6GB > 1060 3GB.
Not worth upgrading.
Hmm still rocking a gtx 770 haha. Any decent budget nvidia cards?
Ive got a 670. It's still fine. Prolly need a new card but at $400 just can't justify it. Video cards are waaaaay more expensive than their console equivalent and you get a whole console with your video card when you get a console.
Oh and in case I am called out on that…. Xbox One X… Quoting PC Gamer magazine: "If you were to buy something equivalent, expect an AMD RX 580 or GeForce GTX 1060, but those desktop graphics cards have less video memory."
Completely wrong.
The xbox one x has a shared 12GB pool of memory, 3GB of that is reserved for the operating system, leaving 9GB for games.
But unlike on a graphics card, that 9GB is used for everything the game needs, not just the models, textures and buffers that graphics card memory stores.
So it is completely false to claim a 8GB graphics card has less graphics memory than a 9 GB (usable) console!
I bought this to upgrade from my GTX 670. i would say the Nvidia cards a better value but i have a free sync monitor so i was hanging for AMD cards to come back to a normal (ish) price
My R9 290 i picked up for $200 about 2 years ago is still within striking distance of this card. This makes me happy and sad at the same time.
I see alot of ppl comparing cards.
I have r9 390 is it worth upgrading?
Looking for any opinions. ThanksA R9 390 is comparable to a RX580 to be honest.
The 580 will use less power but isn't much faster; and in some games, it's slower.
They also have an Asus 1060 3Gb for $289 which is $60 cheaper than the same card at MSY and also the cheapest 1060 I could find anywhere.
Worth a deal,post
How do these hash on etherium?
With a bios mod, you can get 40-42Mhash out of them.
Stock you're looking at about 32Mhash.
$109 for a 250gb 960 EVO NVMe SSD is awesome https://www.computeralliance.com.au/250gb-samsung-960-evo-pc…