Intel's 34nm NAND SSDs launch in two weeks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Earzz

Thanks for the reply Ourasi, could you maybe explain me a it more in detail?

-I tryed hdderase and i selected option 4, i could only select 2 and 4, number 1 and 3 werent available.
As it started t said somethink like "writing random data" but it never went any further then 0% so i canceled that run with the hope the drive was still alive and thankfully it was.
So i got a bit scared of hdderase and i didnt try to use it anymore.
Did i use the wrong option ?

- Is GC/Defrag build in the firmware of the Intel SSD or is it something else?

- Your talking about updating the ICH9R, could you maybe link me to a guide or explain me how? Hopefully this wont scare me either.

Ill sure turn of Write-Back Cache when im back home, as for the other things i hope you can help me out.
ATM i feel it a bit like that these 400€ are my worst invested Euro's ever.

Cheers

---

Use HDDerase 3.3 and ONLY use option 1, the option you selected will fragment the HELL out of your drives.
Did you put mobo in IDE compatible mode?
Unplug all your drives, you should wait until JUST after you load hdderase.exe before you plug in your x25-m. This should allow you to select option 1.

Your results are too bad to be anything to do with alignment and is a wild goose chase as alignment mainly affects small writes, so it must be due to fragmentation.

I'm pretty confident if you do the above performance will be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhys

Use HDDerase 3.3 and ONLY use option 1, the option you selected will fragment the HELL out of your drives.
Did you put mobo in IDE compatible mode?
Unplug all your drives, you should wait until JUST after you load hdderase.exe before you plug in your x25-m. This should allow you to select option 1.

Your results are too bad to be anything to do with alignment and is a wild goose chase as alignment mainly affects small writes, so it must be due to fragmentation.

I'm pretty confident if you do the above performance will be fine.

---

I did use the wrong hdderase, im now on 3.3 and i will try it later on today.
The reason that my drives are so crap is that i first bought one X25-M and the day after the second one, so one drive was clean and the other wasnt.
The performance wasnt good at all and i thought it had to do with the aligment so i started messing with that and reinstalled my pc around 15 times last weekend.
Hopefully its gonna work, ill keep you updated guys.

Thanks guys

Right im back again and i erased my X25-M's with hdderase 3.3 and here are the results:

Write-Back Cache Disabled:
http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/k...cheDisable.png

Write-Back Cache Enabled:
http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/k...cheEnabled.png

W7 is reinstalled with W7 restore system so not a complete reinstall, i dont know that this got any effect on the performance.
I did try Write-Back Cache and as you see "disabled" got higher read speeds but lower small file write speeds and "enabled" got lower read speeds but higher small file write speeds, so what would be the best? :shrug:
If you guys say the results are still not any good ill erase again and do a clean install instead of a restore.
These SSD's sure keep you busy :hitself:

When I disabled volume cache my system does not feel as "snappy", seriously. And no, it ain't placebo. I'll use it for a few days diabled, turn it on and things are back as they should be. So, I don't know what the deal with max IOPS is, but I know what I feel, and I feel I should have it enabled. :shrug:

My COD4 loads in 3.0s with cache enabled and in 2.8 with it disabled... I keep it disabled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

My COD4 loads in 3.0s with cache enabled and in 2.8 with it disabled... I keep it disabled.

---

Yeah, I've testet with stopwatch on all my apps, utilities, Games, IOMeter and OS operations, and WriteBack looses every time, sometimes with a huge margin... Milage might vary, but my stopwatch does not lie, nor do IOMeter, but things might "feel" different if Superfetch/prefetch and all the other none SSD stuff is on, who knows... My 8.3 seconds Win7 boot, and all the other timed tests, atleast tells me what to do, others can do what they like as always;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

When I disabled volume cache my system does not feel as "snappy", seriously. And no, it ain't placebo. I'll use it for a few days diabled, turn it on and things are back as they should be. So, I don't know what the deal with max IOPS is, but I know what I feel, and I feel I should have it enabled. :shrug:

---

On HDD's you are right, it will add some feeling of a faster system, on SSD however, the WriteBack Cache just cant keep up with the Intel drives. It might also aid some other brands of SSD's, just not the Intel SSD's...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Earzz

Right im back again and i erased my X25-M's with hdderase 3.3 and here are the results:

I did try Write-Back Cache and as you see "disabled" got higher read speeds but lower small file write speeds and "enabled" got lower read speeds but higher small file write speeds, so what would be the best? :shrug:

---

WriteBack Cache inflate the QD#1 results, but does the opposite to realistic Queue Depth, ecpesially under long workloads. Crystal 4kb Random R/W is QD#1, wich is an nonexistant scenario, even opening Calculator.exe gives QD#4, and CDM should be ignored for this reason alone, just throw it in the bin, and download AS Benchmark instead and focus on the 64Thrd 4kb random R/W bench... Turn WriteBack Cache off, and do not bench the array into submission, a good allround adwise for most;)

Well i have it disabled atm and ill just give it a real world try.
On the previous page you where talking about updating the ICH9R, is it really worth doing, do you have any info how to do it or maybe a guid?

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Earzz

Well i have it disabled atm and ill just give it a real world try.
On the previous page you where talking about updating the ICH9R, is it really worth doing, do you have any info how to do it or maybe a guid?

Cheers

---

If you have an AMI bios, I can mod it for you to contain v8.8.0.1009 raid bios...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ourasi

If you have an AMI bios, I can mod it for you to contain v8.8.0.1009 raid bios...

---

Yeah i have a AMI bios (see sig), so this means if i want to update my bios to a newer one it has to be modded again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Earzz

Yeah i have a AMI bios (see sig), so this means if i want to update my bios to a newer one it has to be modded again?

---

Yes, unless it has a newer Option ROM... But I can assure you there will not exactly be raining new bioses from asus on an board with ICH9R...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ourasi

On HDD's you are right, it will add some feeling of a faster system, on SSD however, the WriteBack Cache just cant keep up with the Intel drives. It might also aid some other brands of SSD's, just not the Intel SSD's...

---

Well, I'll give it a go then again.... So what about Device Manager? Do you check the 2nd policy box or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

Well, I'll give it a go then again.... So what about Device Manager? Do you check the 2nd policy box or not?

---

I check it to disable flushing...

I have another problem, my pc crashes when i try to get out of sleep mode and try to boot my pc the raid array is gone.
This is pretty bad because i had to reinstall my pc already 3 times because of this.
Once it didnt even crash, i just had my pc turned of over night and the array was also gone.
Is this a W7 problem or a hardware problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Earzz

I have another problem, my pc crashes when i try to get out of sleep mode and try to boot my pc the raid array is gone.
This is pretty bad because i had to reinstall my pc already 3 times because of this.
Once it didnt even crash, i just had my pc turned of over night and the array was also gone.
Is this a W7 problem or a hardware problem?

---

It's a problem with ICH9R.
You need to update your bios, and if that doesn't work, you should just get a new ICH10R based mobo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhys

It's a problem with ICH9R.
You need to update your bios, and if that doesn't work, you should just get a new ICH10R based mobo.

---

Or does the ICH8R work? Im sure an upgrade to an i7 isn't something someone does on a whim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deathman20

Or does the ICH8R work? Im sure an upgrade to an i7 isn't something someone does on a whim.

---

ICH10R is available on P45 which you could do on a whim

Update.

Not trying to take anything away from these drives but i'm not as happy as i was when i jumped on board for 3x30 vertexs. Truthfully i cant even notice the diffrence between the two.

Right now im using
2x80g2's raid0 for os and apps
3x30 vertexes raid0 for games
1.5tb seagate which is being used for c:temp, c:tmp, ie cach. firefox cach, my documents, my pictures, my music, my games,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Earzz

I have another problem, my pc crashes when i try to get out of sleep mode and try to boot my pc the raid array is gone.
This is pretty bad because i had to reinstall my pc already 3 times because of this.
Once it didnt even crash, i just had my pc turned of over night and the array was also gone.
Is this a W7 problem or a hardware problem?

---

Just happened to me as well and I'm on Vista 64 and have a ICH10R mobo.

Two things changed:
I used HDDERASE 3.3
I installed Vista with default 1024KB offset

Before that I used an off set of 128KB and installed the OS on untouched new 160GB X25-M drives.

I had no BSODs for the few days I had it running. It could be coincidence. We'll see...or maybe the firmware of the drives has some other bugs aside from the reported BIOS password thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cx-ray

Just happened to me as well and I'm on Vista 64 and have a ICH10R mobo.

Two things changed:
I used HDDERASE 3.3
I installed Vista with default 1024KB offset

Before that I used an off set of 128KB and installed the OS on untouched new 160GB X25-M drives.

I had no BSODs for the few days I had it running. It could be coincidence. We'll see...or maybe the firmware of the drives has some other bugs aside from the reported BIOS password thing.

---

Yeah same here, i also just used HDDERASE 3.3.
RAID just disappears without warning after the computer was turned of or in sleep mode.
Just came home from work and i had the same issue again, same like this morning.
Didnt happen in the week before, but TBH im sick and tired of the raid setup so one drive is going back to the shop.
I came from two raptors in RAID0 and they never gave me problems.
Since i installed the Postville's in RAID i had nothing but problems and ofcourse they can be solved but i already re-installed my computer around 20 times so i cant be asked anymore.

Just installed Vista 64 again with 128KB offset. I've put the PC to sleep 3 times already and everything appears fine...but who knows :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by modboxx

Update.

Not trying to take anything away from these drives but i'm not as happy as i was when i jumped on board for 3x30 vertexs. Truthfully i cant even notice the diffrence between the two.

Right now im using
2x80g2's raid0 for os and apps
3x30 vertexes raid0 for games
1.5tb seagate which is being used for c:temp, c:tmp, ie cach. firefox cach, my documents, my pictures, my music, my games,

---

This is not directed at you, btw. I am amazed at the intel fanboi-ism floating around and the bashing of other late-gen SSDs.

I use both Vertexes and X25-Ms every single day, in multiple configurations at home and at work. Everybody is bashing the Vertexes for quote "crappy" small-write performance and that intel is so freakin' stellar at them. Fine, let's all have a circle-jerk while we stare at our X25-M small-write benchmarks all day.

IN THE REAL WORLD, where these particular SSDs should get used everyday, you will find there is little to NO difference between them. If anything, with daily usage, I benefit more from the higher seq. writes of the Vertexes more so than the small-write advantage of the intels. Now I can see where the intels would have the advantage, depending on usage.

Both are excellent SSDs, but bashing one based on a benchmark vs. real-life experience and personal, daily usage is idiotic. And somebody swapping out their Vertex array with a G2 intel array, expecting to see a difference in daily usage, will hopefully be doing it for a very specific reason - like he or she NEEDS the small-write advantage because he or she does X and Y all day that make use of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cx-ray

Just installed Vista 64 again with 128KB offset. I've put the PC to sleep 3 times already and everything appears fine...but who knows :)

---

What steps did you make when u used hdderase?
I really think it has to do with hdderase and the reboot.
After you selected the ssd for the first time it wil ask you to reboot, after the reboot you have to select the ssd and then you have the option menu to erase your ssd.

I just followed the instructions in HDDERASE 3.3 and used option 1 for a secure erase. After that I setup RAID 0. Then, before installing Vista I created a 128KB starting off set (Diskpart - create partition primary align=128). Once the Vista install was done I immediately installed the Intel chipset drivers, rebooted, shut down system and power. Next, the Intel Matrix driver, reboot, shutdown and power off.

Finally, I installed the video driver so I could properly test the sleep feature.

I don't know whether shutting down had any effect. I just did it out of precaution to ensure myself that all settings were saved. I also followed the same steps with the offset because it worked last time.