Generalkidd

So I did ultimately get the Samsung 870 QVO QLC w/ DRAM and I decided to keep it too rather than exchange it for a DRAM-less TLC SSD. From my personal usage so far, it *feels* a lot better than the previous DRAM-less TeamGroup SSD I had. The Samsung Magic software's performance mode for the SSD seems to help even further too. One thing that's really eyebrow-raising for me is that in CrystalDiskInfo, after only writing 586 GB to the SSD so far, the health status has already been reduced to 99% whereas other SSDs I've written over 100 TB and still remained at 100%. I'm sure it's nothing to be concerned about but it was a bit surprising.

Well the main concern people have with QLC SSDs is that once you use up the cache (especially if there's no DRAM cache either), the actual speeds of QLC SSDs when writing directly to it is actually slower than a decent HDD. That's why it's often recommended to get an SSD with DRAM. But in my case, between the 2 options I had, the only SSD with DRAM would've been the QLC option. TLC memory gets about as slow as hard drives too when you use up their cache but not as slow as QLC which is like as bad as a 5400 RPM HDD. So basically I wasn't sure if it was better to go with "faster memory but no DRAM cache" or "slowest memory but good DRAM cache". I ended up choosing the latter but was curious if I made the right choice.

The TeamGroup CX2 1 TB SSD is one of their latest but it is a no frills SSD which is why it's the cheapest you'll find anywhere. Based on their spec sheet, there isn't DRAM but there is an SLC cache. The Samsung QVO by comparison has a DRAM and SLC cache. From reviews I read online, SSDs with solely an SLC cache still aren't as good as ones with DRAM. But this is really the first time I've ever taken DRAM vs DRAM-less into consideration when getting an SSD

An SSD with DRAM isn't using the system RAM for cache, it means the SSD has its own onboard DRAM. Plus there's more to an SSD than just the transfer speeds of the SATA connector.

In this case, the TeamGroup TLC SSD was only like $5-7 cheaper so I figured it was better to spend a few extra dollars and get the Samsung SSD. I just wasn't sure if QLC is so bad that having a DRAM cache couldn't make up for it compared to a DRAM-less SSD.

DRAM is just the term for "Dynamic Random Access Memory" which applies to all forms of RAM. DDR5, DDR4, etc are all DRAM. It does not specify a specific generation of RAM. Also, SDRAM isn't a generation of RAM that predated DDR1, it's a type of DRAM that includes all modern forms of RAM. Even the latest DDR5 is still SDRAM.

There was a huge sale on Newegg recently where the 1 TB Samsung QVO 870 was going for like $79 which put it very close to ultra cheap DRAM-less SSDs like the TeamGroup CX1 1 TB SSD. I did end up getting the Samsung SSD because ironically my current TeamGroup SSD (GX2) seems to have failed on me and even before it failed the performance was often times pretty bad on this laptop. But I'm wondering if I made the right choice going with QLC. I'm aware of the significant downsides of QLC memory but was hoping the DRAM and SLC cache would make up for it compared to a DRAM-less TLC SSD. But what are your thoughts about this? Would you rather go for a QLC SSD that has DRAM or a cheaper TLC SSD without DRAM?

I recently bought a very cheap mining edition of a Sapphire RX 470 4 GB. Pretty sure the memory brand is Samsung as well. This particular mining RX 470 also has a DVI port on it. I wanted to flash a gaming BIOS on it since the default BIOS it came with pulls like 20 fps in games that the RX 470 normally shouldn't break a sweat in. I've never flashed a graphics card before and when I tried flashing a BIOS I found on techpowerup that seemed suitable, I ended up with a black screen when trying to boot. Unfortunately I made the mistake of not backing up the original BIOS but eventually did find what seems to be a stock BIOS from someone else. So I flashed that and I think it's mostly back to normal now although the driver seems to have issues in device manager and AMD's software doesn't recognize that a graphics driver has been installed. So anyone ever done this before with the RX 470? What's the specific BIOS I should be flashing and is there a specific driver I need to be installing as well? Thanks!

Shouldn't be a problem for me to flash the BIOS then. I was mainly curious about why it'd have a DVI port built in when most other mining GPUs that I'm aware of have no such port and how what kind of video output functionality or capabilities this mining card might have with the stock BIOS.

Well since this is a mining edition of the 470, much like the P106, they're going for pretty low prices on ebay, around $80 at the moment. So around half the price of a 1650 currently. I don't mind flashing the BIOS but I was curious what kind of functionality I could expect with the default BIOS since this mining GPU has a DVI port on it unlike most other mining cards.

Out of curiosity, what could I expect if I didn't flash the BIOS and used it as is? I assume the video output would still work but what would happen if I tried to game with the default BIOS? I'm mainly interested in this card because I'm looking to replace the GTX 1050 in it with something better but cheap that'll get the job done (not doing any high end gaming on this particular PC).

I remember plenty of tutorials for using the nVidia P106 and other mining editions of the RX 470 for gaming. They all required flashing the BIOS and using an integrated GPU to output the video. However, I noticed there are some mining editions of the RX 470 that actually come with a DVI output on it. Can these mining GPUs be used as gaming GPUs without needing to flash the BIOS and using an iGPU? I presume the DVI port must be used for video output so what would happen if I used one of these RX 470s as a primary GPU for gaming and output video directly through it? Or would there need to be more done in order to use them for gaming?

I'm glad to see this works on 2nd gen Intel CPUs now too. I have an old PC I'd like to upgrade with the P106 but it's currently a 1st gen Intel with no integrated GPU. I have an nVidia GeForce GT 610 for the graphics output though. Would it be possible to use the P106 for gaming while using the GeForce GT 610 as a video output?

Doesn't seem like anybody had success with it. The issue probably is with Intel's drivers being out of date for this purpose rather than Windows. I'm not entirely sure though. I've wanted to buy one of these and the price keeps going up a bit too but there's no point for me to get one either if it doesn't work on my 1st gen Intel HD Graphics.

Dang that's what I was afraid of. I have a CPU with a 1st gen HD Graphics so that'll probably not work.