This was posted 6 years 6 months 3 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Samsung 970 PRO 512GB - Nvme Pcie M.2 2280 SSD (MZ-V7P512BW) ($227.99 + $5.65 US Shipping) $316.53 AU @ Amazon US

490
Samsung 970 PRO 512GB - Nvme Pcie M.2 2280 SSD (MZ-V7P512BW) ($227.99 + $5.65 US Shipping) $316.53 AU @ Amazon USAffiliate
Go to Deal
Cashback
garetz on 20/06/2018 - 09:05 amazon.com (604 clicks)
Last edited 20/06/2018 - 09:12
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Cheapest local price is $409 aud

  • Built with Samsung’s industry leading V-NAND technology for reliable and unrivaled performance
  • Read speeds up to 3,500MB/s* with a 5-year limited warranty and exceptional endurance up to 1,200 TBW* (* Varies by capacity)
  • Seamless cloning and file transfers with the Samsung Magician Software, the ideal SSD management solution for performance optimization and data security with
    automatic firmware updates
  • Samsung’s Dynamic Thermal Guard reduces risk of overheating and minimizes performance drops
Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.
Computing Computer Component Samsung SSD

Related Stores

Amazon US
Amazon US

closed Comments

  • zzkazu on 20/06/2018 - 10:44

    You might just stung with GST on this; in the post FY18/19 world.

  • wannagrababargain on 20/06/2018 - 10:46

    good post

  • Shwayne on 20/06/2018 - 10:49
    +9

    Great price, but you don't need it unless your job is benchmarking SSD's.

    I have this, as well as an 850, and honestly the difference is not even perceivable for gaming, booting or launching applications, but its ridiculously obvious for benchmarks.

    • netsurfer on 20/06/2018 - 10:59

      Yeah, the quoted sequential read/write is the cache (SLC cache speed). Cache size is bigger than the size benchmark software use to test sequential speed, but once you do a sustained read/write test, its true MLC speed is revealed.

      I have 960 Pro - same experience, a bit faster than a SATA3 MLC SSD, but not a big difference. The main reason is the random read/write performance hasn't improved much. Sequential read/write for m.2 SSD is mainly just good for marketing.

    • Diji1 on 20/06/2018 - 11:19

      the difference is not even perceivable for gaming, booting or launching applications

      How about timing it instead of relying on your brain which is hopeless (like everyone's brain) at measuring things.

      • Shwayne on 20/06/2018 - 11:35

        Look, there's probably measurable differences in terms of a few seconds for longer load times, but it's nothing in comparison to HDD -> SSD.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2018 - 11:56

          Walking -> Having a car is different by magnitudes. Doesn't mean Corolla -> GT is irrelevant.

        • Shwayne on 20/06/2018 - 14:51
          +1

          Well yeah that's a good analogy, but a bad example, as you can definitely appreciate the tangible difference in both appearance, feel and experience between a Corolla and a GT even if they achieve the same purpose, where as you can only barely tell a difference between the SATA and NVME SSD.

          There's an enormous deal of abstraction between what's going on when you're using a SSD, and far less in a car (although still a lot).

      • netsurfer on 20/06/2018 - 12:25
        +1

        I measured it: 0.92 seconds for Windows 10 bootup. Samsung 950 Pro vs Sandisk Extreme II SSD (512MB).

        TechReport's test (Windows 8.1 load time) - the m.2 advantage: 0.5 seconds.
        https://techreport.com/review/29221/samsung-950-pro-512gb-ss…

        The SATA3 SSDs even managed to load a couple of games faster than m.2 counterpart. Don't get me wrong, I have a number of m.2 SSDs. They are faster in general, but nothing like the sequential read/write difference suggests in real life usage.

      • magic8ballgag on 20/06/2018 - 14:18
        +2

        brain which is hopeless (like everyone's brain)

        Speak for yourself.

    • idonotknowwhy on 20/06/2018 - 11:36
      +1

      I benefit from nvme -> nvme transfers every day, Transferring 40+GB files around.

      • netsurfer on 20/06/2018 - 13:01

        That's one usage scenario for NVMe (2 of them) where you can actually feel the benefit of sequential read/write. Though, if we are talking about 512GB m2 TLC SSDs, sustained write is at best around 600MB (not the specs quoted SLC cache speed).

        In one of the m.2 SSD deals posted, a rich OZBer reminded me / us the following about m.2 SSD:

        • Thermal throttling (the m.2 board size just doesn't allow efficient heat dissipation.
        • U.2 and PCI-express based SSDs tend not to have the heat dissipation issue.
        • 3D X-Point SSDs where the random read/write performance boost is significant that you can actually feel the difference even with one SSD.

        Sure, Samsung 960 Pro improved heat dissipation over Samsung 950 Pro and I am sure Samsung 970 Pro will be even better, but we are still talking about seconds, not hours.

        • idonotknowwhy on 20/06/2018 - 13:27

          Yep, the thermal throttling gets me when I copy large files, I'll admit that. But it's still faster than SATA even when throttled, and it only kicks in towards the end of a large file copy.

        • netsurfer on 20/06/2018 - 13:37

          @idonotknowwhy: I'm not that comfortable with m.2 and mSATA SSD's running temperature in general (compared to SATA3 ones). Another thing is I had a Samsung SSD failed / died before. Samsung RMA for SSD is very good, but an SSD fail is still an SSD fail. I also lost faith in Samsung TLC based SSDs after that.

          With single m.2 in my setup, I struggle to pump data fast enough to the SSD to really benefit from it. The PC does have Thunderbolt 3, but I don't have a Thunderbolt 3 storage device. Two m.2 SSDs in 1 PC is too much luxury for me (I don't have the usage pattern to need that - it's not like I edit 4K videos all the time). The random read/write, while improved, isn't that significant.

      • Shwayne on 20/06/2018 - 14:54

        There's definitely some real use cases out there! :)

    • RedHab on 20/06/2018 - 15:42

      Very true, real world difference is hard to detect.

      In theory, the 6Gbps SATA 3 bus maxes out around 0.570 GB/s

      PCIe supports 8Gbps per lane (0.984 GB/s x1, 1.97 GB/s for x2 and 3.94 GB/s x4 for PCIe 3 spec)

      I'm not sure why there is so little speedup, I suspect the overhead is in the operating system and CPU context switching overhead, or just the way Windows boots?

      • CookieJacker31 on 20/06/2018 - 18:25
        +1

        That about sums it up.

        HDD: <————-do something—————><##########load data################################><———————-><##############################>

        SATA SSD: <————-do something—————><#####><———————-><####>

        NVME: <————-do something—————><##><———————-><#>

        As someone said if you are lugging around massive files you will get a whole lot more time spend on moving/reading data. The disk is less of a bottleneck with SSD. My old HD would boot into windows and the CPU would sit on 12% max because it was just loading data from the HD and waiting.

    • lostn on 20/06/2018 - 18:22
      +1

      That's been my experience with the 960 Pro.

      If you can get an Evo for significantly cheaper, I'd go for that. Or even a m.2 Sata. The 1TB WD Black for around $300 is good value.

  • getho on 20/06/2018 - 10:59

    970 evo m.2 about $285 on ebay. Still stupidly fast, as opposed to pointlessly fast :D

  • holeski on 20/06/2018 - 11:28
    -4

    Much better price, local, less GST if business expense…

    https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/500GB-Samsung-970-EVO-M-2-2280-P…

    • idonotknowwhy on 20/06/2018 - 11:38

      That's an EVO, this is a PRO.
      This is like if someone posts a Sony Xperia XZ Premium, and then you reply with a link to the Sony Xperia XZ.

  • Wonderfool on 20/06/2018 - 13:18

    Does the people who cares about the fastest nvme ssd, also care about the price?

    It's like the Xeon platform (or I guess, nowadays, with the i9). I don't think they care about price unless they're old models.

    • idonotknowwhy on 20/06/2018 - 13:30

      Does the people who cares about the fastest nvme ssd, also care about the price?

      Some of us do (I do). I'll shop around and find the cheapest place to get the model I want.

      • magic8ballgag on 20/06/2018 - 14:20

        I'm pretty sure their question was rhetorical.

      • Wonderfool on 21/06/2018 - 11:38

        I mean, yeah, I get it. But do you wait for discounts? Nvme has a workstation image in my mind, hence the Xeon comparison.

        • idonotknowwhy on 21/06/2018 - 11:50
          +1

          I mean, yeah, I get it. But do you wait for discounts?

          Yeah, usually. If I'm impatient, I'll settle for one of TA's 10% off ebay site-wide deals.
          I usually have my ebay cart lubed up waiting for discounts these days anyway.

        • Wonderfool on 21/06/2018 - 12:25

          @idonotknowwhy: ah, ok, thanks.

    • netsurfer on 20/06/2018 - 15:09

      Yes, they do. Thus, local sellers are not clearing 970 Pro 512GB SSDs despite the 15% off eBay voucher + eBay Plus free shipping.

      NVMe SSDs are becoming ubiquitous and with so many deals already posted on OZB, there is no real incentive to get one of these right now for most people.

      Also, more people are thinking about / wanting 1TB SSDs. The manufacturers know that and that's why the 1TB model of this SSD is further optimised to perform better (to encourage you to go for 1TB and cave in the the price premium).

      • Wonderfool on 21/06/2018 - 11:36

        Wouldn't it be more of a problem of the fact that the 970 just isn't popular? You can get quite some decent nvme ssd without needing to opt for higher end Samsung. After all, there is very limited of task that can really benefit from the extra storage speed.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2018 - 14:57

    Nice. Although 1TB drive would be better :p

  • dblade123 on 20/06/2018 - 15:49

    Mine is showing as $321.59 AUD after the conversion. Am I doing something wrong?

    • wannagrababargain on 20/06/2018 - 16:26
      +1

      Amazon gives you the option to pay in USD or in AUD. If you select AUD then Amazon will handle the currency conversion for you and charge your card in AUD, however the Amazon currency conversion rate is abysmal hence the discrepency. If you have a credit card with low international transaction fees, like the 28 degrees Mastercard, you would opt to have your card charged in USD so Mastercard/Visa does the conversion at a better rate.

      • dblade123 on 20/06/2018 - 16:31

        Oh I see, alright thanks!

  • sssx on 27/06/2018 - 20:58

    this deal hasn't expired, seems you can still get it for this price

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join