New X-25-M stepping?

[dctokyo]

New model number of Intel 2.5 inches SSD “X25-M Mainstream SATA SSD” has appeared here in Japan, “SSDSA2MJ080G2C1” the old number was “SSDSA2MH080G2C1"

Intel has released according to “Product Number Decoder” in the past, the 7&8 letters are the the cord/code which shows the type of adoption NAND flash, “SH”, SLC type, “MH” is, MLC type is shown, but it seems like the latest product, there is no "MH" it now shows “MJ”.

So do you think that this means there is a new X-25-M stepping? Also the shops here have this listed at a higher price.

[flamenko]

New model number of Intel 2.5 inches SSD “X25-M Mainstream SATA SSD” has appeared here in Japan, “SSDSA2MJ080G2C1” the old number was “SSDSA2MH080G2C1"

Intel has released according to “Product Number Decoder” in the past, the 7&8 letters are the the cord/code which shows the type of adoption NAND flash, “SH”, SLC type, “MH” is, MLC type is shown, but it seems like the latest product, there is no "MH" it now shows “MJ”.

So do you think that this means there is a new X-25-M stepping? Also the shops here have this listed at a higher price.

Could it be the refresh? Speed of the NAND?

[Computurd]

wow that would be awesome if it is a new version! things usually hit japan first, right? they released the x-25v with very little fanfare so who knows. maybe it is.

[Musho]

New model number of Intel 2.5 inches SSD “X25-M Mainstream SATA SSD” has appeared here in Japan, “SSDSA2MJ080G2C1” the old number was “SSDSA2MH080G2C1"

Intel has released according to “Product Number Decoder” in the past, the 7&8 letters are the the cord/code which shows the type of adoption NAND flash, “SH”, SLC type, “MH” is, MLC type is shown, but it seems like the latest product, there is no "MH" it now shows “MJ”.

So do you think that this means there is a new X-25-M stepping? Also the shops here have this listed at a higher price.

Just buy it, and bench that thing. Then we'll now for sure

[AceNZ]

It's a guess, but I think "J" might be the 7mm package and "H" is the 9.5mm version. They don't spell it out on the product order code page, but the different package *is* mentioned in the datasheet, as is the MJ part number.

http://www.intel.com/support/ssdc/hp.../CS-029624.htm
http://www.intel.com/design/flash/na...ldocuments.htm

[dctokyo]

It's a guess, but I think "J" might be the 7mm package and "H" is the 9.5mm version. They don't spell it out on the product order code page, but the different package *is* mentioned in the datasheet, as is the MJ part number.

http://www.intel.com/support/ssdc/hp.../CS-029624.htm
http://www.intel.com/design/flash/na...ldocuments.htm

Thanks for the links

I noticed that it says that Feature "H" = High Performance...... so what would "J" stand for with the new code "MJ"?

[Eggcake]

It's also listed in EU and CH search engines (since ~4. of April 2010) :

http://geizhals.eu/a521343.html

It's 9.5mm (or 7mm, it's the same product). Hmm!!

What could J be? L = Low...M=Medium...but what could J stand for?!

[Tiltevros]

junk :P

[onethreehill]

It's a guess, but I think "J" might be the 7mm package and "H" is the 9.5mm version. They don't spell it out on the product order code page, but the different package *is* mentioned in the datasheet, as is the MJ part number.

http://www.intel.com/support/ssdc/hp.../CS-029624.htm
http://www.intel.com/design/flash/na...ldocuments.htm

No idea what is MJ
SSDSA2MH080G201 = 7.0mm thick
SSDSA2MH080G2C1 = 9.0mm thick
SSDSA2MH160G201 = 7.0mm thick
SSDSA2MH160G2C1 = 9.0mm thick
http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/rese...ture/index.htm

[Hameister]

Since you guys seem to be very knowledgeable concerning this particular SSD, I thought that perhaps you might answer a few questions for me. I just installed my first SSD 2 weeks ago and trying to research and familiarize myself with this X25-M as much as possible.

First, I've followed everything suggested in this guide, with the exception of disabling the page file, and disabling System Restore.

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...l=1#post442158

Now that my SSD has most of my software loaded and is configured the way I like it, there is 29GB of data on the drive. I ran AS SSD and posted the screen shot here. In your opinions, do these results appear "normal", and is this what I should be expecting? Also, could you tell me what the "Scores", in blue, at the bottom of the report are supposed to reflect? Are they just reference numbers, or do they have a specific meaning? I've tried Googling these questions but didn't get any specific answers.

Thanks for your time.

[GullLars]

The read/write scores are roughly calculated by: seq/10 + 4K + 4K64Thrd. The total score is roughly 1,5x read + write. This is supposed to reflect a score approximating the typical performance of an SSD.
Scores for x25-M G2 80GB typically range 350-450, so you've got pretty good numbers. Your accesstimes are also nice.

[Eggcake]

A guy from tomshardware.com asked intel about the new stepping (I don't have the exact source, I just quote from another forum) :

There was a NAND stepping that was implemented on our 80GB SSDs. It did not affect form, fit, or function (no change to performance either) of the SSD.

The first 2 line items listed below show that one digit changed on the brown box sku (C1): The “H” was changed to a “J”. This is to allow OEM customers who have qualified the “H” to test and insure the “J” also meets their qualification requirements. There have been no issues in customer testing.

Intel X25-M 80GB SATA Solid State Drive (9.5mm), A stepping (SSDSA2MH080G2C1)
Intel X25-M 80GB SATA Solid State Drive (9.5mm), B stepping (SSDSA2MJ080G2C1)

The 3rd line item is the retail box (R5), targeted for consumer applications and it was left unchanged because again it is 100% form, fit, function compatible with the previous version.
Intel X25-M 80GB SATA Solid State Drive (9.5mm Retail) (SSDSA2MH080G2R5)

[Hameister]

Thank you GullLars for that explanation, it's appreciated. And, thanks to Eggcake for the Product code breakdown. That answered my query as to why my Product Code ended in R5, because I did get the Retail version. For me it was worth the extra $4.00 vs. OEM, for the 3.5" drive bay conversion bracket so I didn't have to find a place to "hang in" the SSD. Thanks again!

[Soulburner]

Hameister, see my sig for how to best set up an SSD for Windows 7. I have done a lot of reading on each item to determine this - those who just say "disable everything" haven't thought it through at all and some tweak guides are misleading in their suggestions as well.

I haven't read that particular guide until now, but here's my beef with it. Defrag service should not be disabled unless you have NO hard disks attached. Windows 7 already takes your SSD off of the defrag schedule automatically, but leaves the service enabled so it can handle your other disks. Prefetch and Superfetch should be left ON or you are leaving potential system performance and responsiveness on the table. Some of the other suggestions, like disabling UAC, are just stupid.

It looks like that's one of the standard "disable everything" tweak guides, with no real explanation as to why you are disabling most of those items. Read some of my other recent posts on this subject.

[flamenko]

There will always be some form of disagreement with respect to what should and should not be set with a SSD. For example here is Intels guide to New SSD users that says to shut down Superfetch...

Disable Superfetch(For Microsoft Windows Vista and Windows 7)
•On your “Start” search menu, type “services.msc”. Scroll down and find the “Superfetch” line, and double click it to open up its properties.
•Change the “Startup Type” to “disabled”.
•Superfetchis designed to open your frequently used programs more quickly. However, this technique doesn’t speed up an Intel SSD’s performance significantly and can ultimately have a negative effect on the performance of the drive. Superfetchis not a feature on Microsoft Windows XP.

[Hameister]

Thanks Soulburner and flamenko for taking the time to help me out. I read through the Intel Guide, saw the videos etc. Also downloaded the latest Intel driver recommended by that guide. The drivers were released about 6 weeks ago. After installing he new driver, I ran AS SSD again. Read/Write rates and scores were nearly identical to the previous driver but for some reason Write Access Time dropped to .069ms! Hard to complain about that!

As so many have said, there is still a lot of disagreement over what is/is not best for SSD operation. I ended up setting up my own protocol which I'll use until something comes along that convinces me otherwise. Currently I have the O/S defrag turned off completely. I use Auslogic's Defrag for the mechanical HHDs. Hibernation is OFF, Indexing is OFF, Page File is ON, Prefetch is ON, Superfetch is OFF, System Restore is ON with a Max. allowable of 3.73GB, Browser Cache uses only physical memory.

Les, I've read your Blog, and seen your sites before through EOCF....very informative, thanks. Hey, I still have much to learn about this SSD business, but the learning process has been enjoyable, and as always I thank those who help!

[Soulburner]

I believe we discussed this recently: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ght=superfetch

Until I can find evidence there is actually harm done using Superfetch I will continue to use it. Since it isn't writing to the disk, only reading, I have no reason to disable it.

[Hameister]

I believe we discussed this recently: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ght=superfetch

Until I can find evidence there is actually harm done using Superfetch I will continue to use it. Since it isn't writing to the disk, only reading, I have no reason to disable it.

Yes, sorry your memory is better than mine, ha! You may be absolutely correct on the Superfetch. As with many things in the hobby, time will tell.

Thanks again!

[flamenko]

I believe we discussed this recently: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ght=superfetch

Until I can find evidence there is actually harm done using Superfetch I will continue to use it. Since it isn't writing to the disk, only reading, I have no reason to disable it.

Of course there is no harm done but why would you allow this and many other services to continue to run for no purpose in the background. It makes as much sense as enabling Card services even though you will never attach a smart card to your system.

[Soulburner]

Of course there is no harm done but why would you allow this and many other services to continue to run for no purpose in the background.

There are a lot of people trying to "disable everything" as per these "tweak guides". As if to say, they are smarter than the engineers at Microsoft!

[GullLars]

The engineers at Microsoft set up the Windows defaults so it will "just work" for technology illiterate people, the kind of people who look for the "any key" and think the box on the floor with the power button is the harddisk and the screen is the computer...
There is performance to be gained by streamlining your operating system. If you will notice the added performance depends on how good "feel" you have of computers, and what you're using it for.
I can both meassure and feel the difference between a default system and a streamlined system.
The things with the most impact on the system (by importance) i've found to be: pagefile, temp file location and ammount, bloatware or lack thereof, system restore, logging, and indexing (faster searching, slower installs). There is also some difference with superfetch (high HDD activity for a time after hitting desktop), and active unneccesary services (boot time, # of running processes, and some memory consumption).
With SSDs there is also significant difference between having animated windows and menues activated or deactivated.

The importance of streamlining the system even when you have SSDs can be having a snappy system where everything is near-instant, vs a fast system that looses speed as weeks and months pass and can become at times slugish from bloatware and run-away temp files/restore. There's also many GBs of space on C to be s(h)aved. :P

[Hameister]

The engineers at Microsoft set up the Windows defaults so it will "just work" for technology illiterate people, the kind of people who look for the "any key" and think the box on the floor with the power button is the harddisk and the screen is the computer...

I can't help but agree. Think of how we used to do everything in DOS. Commands were negated if a single Syntax was is error. When we moved to Win 3.1, 3.11, Win95, 98, 98SecondEdition, and on and on, each version of Windows removed more control from the user. Each version, in an effort to be "more stable", "more user friendly", moved more towards an appliance your mom could use. As a result the DOS shell disappeared as we knew it. Windows started doing all kinds of things we didn't necassarily want, but we had no alternative. Windows continues to migrate toward the lowest common denominator of computer user.

We as enthusiasts, have no alternative but to look for ways to modify the OS to place the control back in our hands as much as possible. Hence the registry hacks, and "disable tweaks" that sometimes work very well, and other times turn out to be unnecessary.

However, none of this indicates that we know more than M$ engineers. We are no different than a race car driver who drives his own personal car on the weekends and would like to be able to turn off the cruise control so he can have complete control over his vehicles speed, rather than have to rely on the design engineers concept of how a car should be driven for the masses. Anyway....that's my 2 cents worth.

[Soulburner]

Check my new post on How To: Prevent Chrome from caching to your SSD using Junctions

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/....php?p=4395783

[flamenko]

Ahhhh the flow seems to be changing and Soulburner flips for a quick change of subject eheheh (j/k my friend). I have to admit I agree totally with both of you Gullars and Hameister. If the typical user simply wants to install and use his system as his, for the most part he won't be around these parts. There is alot of benefit and sometimes massive improvement gains from fine tuning even Windows 7. Someone once told me switching off services did nothing for boot up and as a result I checked the little box in MSConfig that said to Disable all and found out just how much time could be saved at start up. I then looked at all the running services in their that had absolutely nothing to do with my specific system.

Its much the same with Startups and updaters. They are killers of performance and pretty much every program thows a service or startup in that starts with the system regardless of whether you are using the specific program. 100% of the time when someone asks me why their start time is horrid I point to this and ask them to learn about these as I did. 100% of the time they came back stating that it resulted in massive improvements to their systems. Updaters are another killer and everything from your OS to all of your applications sets themselves up to check automatically slowing your system to a crawl.

I have hit and had success with alot of different ideas in the past few years, the most controversial being that I still stand by the fact that Pagefile is totally useless on a system with adequate RAM and can be completely shut down once you have monitored your RAM usage and are comfortable with doing this. I still get into some pretty heated debates over this and can stand my own and still have not had a single crash since 2007 when I shut pagefile off all the while helping Dell to get 64 bit in. As well, very few ever thought that System Restore could damage a SSD and even affect TRIM until I sat down and thought of a way to prove it. There have been alot of people who have come back (including Intel) and stated that I just may have something...

Dont get me wrong because I am not trying to be y by any means but sometimes we have to fight the hard fight. If we just sit back and let people stand on their soap box and hollar not to touch Win 7 settings at all, well we just may see some problems from Restore alone now wouldn't we think?

Soulburner...I know you are sitting back getting a bit heated but don't get me wrong. I respect your veiw and efforts. Its really the way things work after all right? We have two opposing points of view and the best result is that reached somewhere in the middle.

[GullLars]

UAC have some security purposes, what they are other than being paranoid about new programs i don't know, i haven't researched it. On the other hand, i can say i havent had any trojans or viruses on my computer for at least 5 years, and the only times i've had any instabillity at all was when testing OC or with buggy/bad drivers.
If you know what you're doing, UAC and firewalls are an active safety net eating resources and annoying you.