Intel 750 PCIe SSD = Worst SSD in the world!

[Makaveli]

I was checking every day like 5 times waiting for a driver or firmware update that would fix this. I've been doing this for a month until last night I lost hope and faith in Intel.

Why would you do this to yourself?

maybe once a day but the problem is I reinstall the OS a lot especially when there are a lot of driver updates just to maintain a clean system.

Why are you reinstalling your OS so often ??

WAAAAAH!
I got buyers remorse, I didn't do any research and now I'm mad!! And the lesson is Boyz n girlz? Do your own home work............Visit site's, not just one, look for reviews of the item you want.

This thread should be locked or deleted as he's bad mouthing of of AnAndtech sponsors!

This!

You didn't do your research before you bought this product.

 

[bradly1101]

I was impressed by this drive's numbers, but mostly by reviewers' comments that it started and ran programs as if they were cached in memory - my fast SATA3 SSD couldn't manage that. But there was little in reviews about boot times. Some feel like Intel was conspiring with review sites to not publish them, but one site (above - SSD Review) said originally they didn't see it as a negative because they believed it required additional enumeration during POST.

Here and elsewhere though I've seen comments that it's also slow during the Windows splash screen. One user watched the lights on his 750 during boot, and at one point which coincided with the moment at which the boot paused for a few seconds the lights were out. I wonder if the 750 has a more advanced POST that takes a little while, it does have an enterprise pedigree. If so I'd be less concerned.

It doesn't appear to be a BIOS issue as PCPer assumed; the NVMe 951 has no slowdown.

But either way (and although the 750 isn't the best performer at low queue depths) I had to try this drive out. I wasn't concerned about the boot times because I'm running an X79 system which only in rare circumstances can boot with NVMe.

But I already had a fast SATA3 SSD that booted and ran Windows very quickly. So (as I've mentioned before) I use my 400GB 750 to run programs and games, and it also acts as a cache drive for photo programs and holds my pagefile. This configuration runs very well, and although I know it's not accurate, it feels like the whole system is sitting in RAM, ready like never before.

Beside that I didn't want to 'waste' the 32GB it would take of my 400GB to have Windows installed on it.

So there's still a way to enjoy this drive's speed and avoid any boot slowdowns.

 

[Makaveli]

I was impressed by this drive's numbers, but mostly by reviewers' comments that it started and ran programs as if they were cached in memory - my fast SATA3 SSD couldn't manage that. But there was little in reviews about boot times. Some feel like Intel was conspiring with review sites to not publish them, but one site (above - SSD Review) said originally they didn't see it as a negative because they believed it required additional enumeration during POST.

Here and elsewhere though I've seen comments that it's also slow during the Windows splash screen. One user watched the lights on his 750 during boot, and at one point which coincided with the moment at which the boot paused for a few seconds the lights were out. I wonder if the 750 has a more advanced POST that takes a little while, it does have an enterprise pedigree. If so I'd be less concerned.

It doesn't appear to be a BIOS issue as PCPer assumed; the NVMe 951 has no slowdown.

But either way (and although the 750 isn't the best performer at low queue depths) I had to try this drive out. I wasn't concerned about the boot times because I'm running an X79 system which only in rare circumstances can boot with NVMe.

But I already had a fast SATA3 SSD that booted and ran Windows very quickly. So (as I've mentioned before) I use my 400GB 750 to run programs and games, and it also acts as a cache drive for photo programs and holds my pagefile. This configuration runs very well, and although I know it's not accurate, it feels like the whole system is sitting in RAM, ready like never before.

Beside that I didn't want to 'waste' the 32GB it would take of my 400GB to have Windows installed on it.

So there's still a way to enjoy this drive's speed and avoid any boot slowdowns.

Every review I've seen of this drive mentions the slow boot times.

 

[larryccf]

actually, i read quite a few reviews and never saw mention of the slow boot time and only learned about it from a post over on the asus mobo support forum

Then i found two reviews mentioning it, but they were fairly recent reviews

 

[Makaveli]

actually, i read quite a few reviews and never saw mention of the slow boot time and only learned about it from a post over on the asus mobo support forum

Then i found two reviews mentioning it, but they were fairly recent reviews

Which reviews were those if you don't mind me asking?

 

[bradly1101]

The original PCPer review had nothing about boot times. They addressed it in the comments section when brought up by users and blamed it on the Mobo BIOS, but as I said I think it's something else. I hardly ever reboot so it wouldn't be a problem, but if I did a lot I can see how this could be an issue.

 

[Makaveli]

ahh I thought you were going to list multiple reviews. I normally don't drop $1000+ on an item without researching it thoroughly but that may just be me. As for rebooting from like win 7 on the amount of reboots I do has dropped alot. Windows has been stable enough that I don't see the need to multiple reboots in a day or even in a week.

But I guess the person that is still in the habit of rebooting 5-10 times a day and sitting staring at the screen it may be an issue.

We shall see in time if intel does indeed fix it with a firmware update.

OP learned a valuable lesson tho always be wary of first gen products and do your research!!

 

[larryccf]

Which reviews were those if you don't mind me asking?

IT'S been awhile but probably along the time bradly1101 was looking - it was 6-7 months ago when i was looking and purchased the xp941 - but there was no mention of any slow boot issues - saw the first mention maybe 6 weeks ago, but that doesn't mean that's when the reports first surfaced, that's just when i first noticed them

 

[Nebor]

You know when you reinstall your OS, it's loading the drivers that came with the OS, right? I'm not sure why you think that is preferable to replacing the second-latest drivers with the latest drivers.

 

[Rubycon]

Far from the worst for sure.
This reminds me back in the late 90s when 10K SCSI drives came out and the geeks would buy them ($$$) along with an expensive host and find that things they are doing on the desktop aren't really any faster, booting/POST takes ages, and the noise...

Problem is desktop OS is optimized using RAM for caching, system has a ton of RAM...

If you are a content creator and moving large amounts of data (or lots of tiny bits of data simultaneously) then this 750 drive will make a huge difference.

Right now the desktop PC isn't really going to see the benefit of this storage technology - yet.

Just as you would not buy a dual socket board with quad SLI Titan-X GPUs and use XP or (cough) Win9x! :biggrin:

The NVme devices will sing if you put databases on them. This is not a typical desktop scenario.

I have rendering systems with 1.5TB of RAM and cascaded intelligent hosts, infiniband controllers, etc. The out of band feature has its own BIOS, etc. Posting such a device takes about 3 minutes. :biggrin: But when it starts booting up, the desktop comes up in about 4 seconds. And having a million+ IOPS from four arrays is priceless.

If you want to ride a rocket, you have to have patience my friend.

And build it good and stable and necessary reboots will be far an in between.

And when they are needed, it's a good time for a coffee break.

 

[bradly1101]

ahh I thought you were going to list multiple reviews. I normally don't drop $1000+ on an item without researching it thoroughly but that may just be me. As for rebooting from like win 7 on the amount of reboots I do has dropped alot. Windows has been stable enough that I don't see the need to multiple reboots in a day or even in a week.

But I guess the person that is still in the habit of rebooting 5-10 times a day and sitting staring at the screen it may be an issue.

We shall see in time if intel does indeed fix it with a firmware update.

OP learned a valuable lesson tho always be wary of first gen products and do your research!!

No, but after seeing this thread I did a little research and saw others mentioning that they hadn't seen the extra 15-16 second boot times in reviews. Honestly I don't think many see it as a big problem.

 

[Makaveli]

The boot time numbers the OP posted are from the Tech report review which is dated may 1st.

And the launch of this drive is around the 2nd of april so if he picked up the drive in this one month span ok.

However if later I would think it should have been noticed.

I totally agree not a huge problem.

 

[mxnerd]

All controller are slow to boot, I guess.

You can put computer in to sleep mode, not shut it down. Next time you wake it up it will be super fast.

 

[beginner99]

You reinstall the OS because you did a driver update? Unless you have absolutely the worst luck by a country mile with drivers, I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain, apart from possibly this feeling:

https://youtu.be/pmEwZ2JJOUk?t=109

It's berryracer, what else did you except?

OP obviously does not have much clue at all. This intel SSD isn't meant for consumers and sure not meant to be used as boot drive. Re-install OS on old normal SATA-3 SSD and then but anything else requiring speed on the intel drive. Done. However I still think it's a waste of money unless your running a huge database with 1000 concurrent users. But I somehow doubt that.

 

[Sabrewings]

Kingston Predator HyperX

Problem solved. No controller boot. I don't even see the Windows 10 splash screen like on my traditional SSD PCs. On Windows 7 it was over before the four dots came together to make the Windows logo.

Everyone downplaying PCIe SSDs must not have used them. The difference from a SATA 3 SSD to a PCIe SSD is like going from HDD to SSD all over again. No load times (games, editing software, etc), Windows boots instantly, 1400MB/s reads, the benefits are very real and noticeable. I don't want a normal SSD again.

The OP just picked a bad one to use as a boot drive. The Kingston drive shows up as a normal boot drive and adds no time to the hardware initialization process. Once the motherboard hits the OS load point it catapults you to the desktop.

 

[Makaveli]

That predator HyperX drive has a fast boot but it slower than the intel drive at everything else.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1046-samsung-sad-850-evo-2tb/page3.html

If boot time is that important it would be worth the switch but I wouldn't take a slower drive just to reduce boot time but that is just me.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I would like to submit that the Crucial V4 may be better qualified for the title of "Worst SSD in the world"

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6325/crucial-v4-256gb-review

 

[Sabrewings]

That predator HyperX drive has a fast boot but it slower than the intel drive at everything else.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1046-samsung-sad-850-evo-2tb/page3.html

If boot time is that important it would be worth the switch but I wouldn't take a slower drive just to reduce boot time but that is just me.

That page is artificial benchmarks. I submit to you the next page, which is real world applications:

http://www.techspot.com/review/1046-samsung-sad-850-evo-2tb/page4.html

The Intel is still a bit faster, but in this case the gap is much smaller. I love my Kingston drive and wouldn't touch that Intel with a 10 foot pole. Not user friendly in the slightest.

 

[Makaveli]

That page is artificial benchmarks. I submit to you the next page, which is real world applications:

http://www.techspot.com/review/1046-samsung-sad-850-evo-2tb/page4.html

The Intel is still a bit faster, but in this case the gap is much smaller. I love my Kingston drive and wouldn't touch that Intel with a 10 foot pole. Not user friendly in the slightest.

Its cute that you think I didn't read the whole review before posting it.

You are meant to look at the real world not the artificial numbers and intel is still in the lead.

User friendly ?? I didn't know that was a category people looked at when looking at a storage drive.

 

[Berryracer]

Kingston Predator HyperX

Problem solved. No controller boot. I don't even see the Windows 10 splash screen like on my traditional SSD PCs. On Windows 7 it was over before the four dots came together to make the Windows logo.

Everyone downplaying PCIe SSDs must not have used them. The difference from a SATA 3 SSD to a PCIe SSD is like going from HDD to SSD all over again. No load times (games, editing software, etc), Windows boots instantly, 1400MB/s reads, the benefits are very real and noticeable. I don't want a normal SSD again.

The OP just picked a bad one to use as a boot drive. The Kingston drive shows up as a normal boot drive and adds no time to the hardware initialization process. Once the motherboard hits the OS load point it catapults you to the desktop.

Interesting, what's your boot time from the moment you see the Windows Loading screen till you get to the desktop? also please specify the OS

 

[Sabrewings]

You are meant to look at the real world not the artificial numbers and intel is still in the lead.

Again, not by much.

User friendly ?? I didn't know that was a category people looked at when looking at a storage drive.

Any why not? If any other drive didn't boot on chipsets more than a couple years old and added to cold boot times, it would be labeled as such. It's to be given a pass because it's a few percent faster than its competition in real world situations?

Interesting, what's your boot time from the moment you see the Windows Loading screen till you get to the desktop? also please specify the OS

I don't see a loading screen. It goes from my RAID card reporting everything is green to the desktop. Windows 10.

On Windows 7, the four dots would appear in the black screen, start to move together and instantly go away before the blue/green "welcome" screen appeared for a brief moment and you are at the desktop.

 

[Makaveli]

Again, not by much.


Any why not? If any other drive didn't boot on chipsets more than a couple years old and added to cold boot times, it would be labeled as such. It's to be given a pass because it's a few percent faster than its competition in real world situations?


I don't see a loading screen. It goes from my RAID card reporting everything is green to the desktop. Windows 10.

On Windows 7, the four dots would appear in the black screen, start to move together and instantly go away before the blue/green "welcome" screen appeared for a brief moment and you are at the desktop.

A lead is still a lead even if the percentage is small.

The 750 is a first gen product and anyone that has been doing this long enough should expect there to be teething problems. I'm not expecting a drive that I bought in 2015 to work at its full capacity on older systems it was not tested on. its like plugging the drive in a motherboard from 2006 with a pci E 1x port and then complaining about it! Only a novice user would label it as a failure.

 

[Redstorm]

What i find amusing is peps buying Z170 boards with 2 x m.2 slots and placing 2 x SM951s together in raid0. What sort of speed are they after.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

What i find amusing is peps buying Z170 boards with 2 x m.2 slots and placing 2 x SM951s together in raid0. What sort of speed are they after.

ALL of the speed, obviously.

 

[Franzi]

My Intel 750 has no issues with slow boot times, its just as fast as any SATA SSD, give or take 2-3 seconds. This is on X99 in UEFI mode with Windows 8.1 and now with Windows 10. I don't understand why people care so much about boot times on Desktops/Workstations, it was the least important thing for me when I bought the 750, which is certainly the finest SSD I owned so far.