Intel 750 PCIe SSD = Worst SSD in the world!

[Berryracer]

@tilleroftheearth


Just updated the firmware and boot time went down from 15 seconds from the moment I see the Windows Loading icon to 8 seconds!!


Instructions to update the firmware using the Intel Data Center Toolbox.


After installing the Intel Data Center Toolbox:



You need to go to the folder where you installed isdct, by default it will be c:\isdct




Then follow the pictures to open an admin command prompt.
















When you then have the admin command prompt open and in C:\isdtc> you just need to input the correct command to flash it.



This is the command to list the Intel SSD's connected to your system: isdct show -intelssd




To update the firmware of an eligable SSD type: isdct load -intelssd 0




Updating the SSD with controller index "0" replace "0" with the eligible number shown with the "-list" command previously that should have shown that an update is available.


Reboot once the firmware update has been done.

 

[Makaveli]

http://techreport.com/news/29102/intel-750-series-ssd-firmware-update-speeds-up-boot-times

 

[Sabrewings]

http://techreport.com/news/29102/intel-750-series-ssd-firmware-update-speeds-up-boot-times

Even with the update, Intel notes that booting off a 750 Series drive will likely still take a bit longer than SATA drives, since PCIe devices reportedly need more time to initialize.

Intel is just making excuses for some reason. That's total bullcrap. There's no more perceived initialization time to my PCIe SSD than a SATA drive. If that were the case, booting off secondary onboard SATA controllers would have a longer boot time as well, since they're just PCIe devices.

After my RAID screen goes by, it's about 3-4 seconds to a working desktop for me. Maybe Intel should ask Kingston/Marvell how they did it?

 

[Atherakhia]

Is there a reason the tool box doesn't update to this firmware version? I think I have the latest toolbox version but it says I'm running version 8EV10135 and that it's up to date?

 

[Makaveli]

Is there a reason the tool box doesn't update to this firmware version? I think I have the latest toolbox version but it says I'm running version 8EV10135 and that it's up to date?

I believe I read on the intel site that the Toolbox has be updated to pull this version.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Intel is just making excuses for some reason. That's total bullcrap. There's no more perceived initialization time to my PCIe SSD than a SATA drive. If that were the case, booting off secondary onboard SATA controllers would have a longer boot time as well, since they're just PCIe devices.

After my RAID screen goes by, it's about 3-4 seconds to a working desktop for me. Maybe Intel should ask Kingston/Marvell how they did it?

Your drive isn't at all similar. It's AHCI, and not NVMe...

 

[bradly1101]

Is there a reason the tool box doesn't update to this firmware version? I think I have the latest toolbox version but it says I'm running version 8EV10135 and that it's up to date?

Mine didn't update either, I did it manually. I lost some sustained speed with large files but everything else looks good.

 

[cbrunny]

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.

Now my practice is to reboot after every driver installation. That means 16 driver installations = 16 reboots x35 seconds each if you count the first startup screen of the UEFI BIOS that's a nightmare waiting for each boot.

Additionally, I cannot accept this in any form when cheap 100 USD SSDs boot up almost instantly and my 1200 USD SSD boots up slower than a traditional HDD.

This thread is about 35 seconds per boot?

 

[Omar F1]

@tilleroftheearth


Just updated the firmware and boot time went down from 15 seconds from the moment I see the Windows Loading icon to 8 seconds!!


Instructions to update the firmware using the Intel Data Center Toolbox.
.....

Thanks for bringing this up.
I just bought the 400GB one and I'm a bit frustrated whether to use it as Win7 or Steam drive.

The speed you're all talking about is truly fascinating, especially for one moving from SATA2 platform (X58).

 

[Skurge]

Your drive isn't at all similar. It's AHCI, and not NVMe...

SM951 doesn't have those same long boot times.

 

[bradly1101]

http://www.maximumpc.com/hard-drive-vs-ssd-performance/#page-2

 

[yinan]

Also, if you are reinstalling your OS this much you really need to look into learning MDT to automate your deployment. It will save you a ton of time.

 

[Grooveriding]

Updated my firmware. It's a big difference, at least twice as fast by me estimation.

 

[Rubycon]

This whole thing with boot times cracks me up.

It's like buying a 10 ton industrial dump truck and complaining that it takes longer to start up then a pick up truck.

And all you ever haul around is perhaps 500 pounds of cargo! :biggrin:

 

[MagickMan]

You're rating it by boot time? The only time I reboot is with updates, when it's forced. Suit yourself, stick with SATA. :\

This whole thing with boot times cracks me up.

It's like buying a 10 ton industrial dump truck and complaining that it takes longer to start up then a pick up truck.

And all you ever haul around is perhaps 500 pounds of cargo! :biggrin:

No kidding, that's just... strange.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

This whole thing with boot times cracks me up.

It's like buying a 10 ton industrial dump truck and complaining that it takes longer to start up then a pick up truck.

And all you ever haul around is perhaps 500 pounds of cargo! :biggrin:

Fifteen years ago, the average office PC was rebooted every two hours. (Hooray for Windows 98!)

Firing one up, logging into the domain, etc., waiting for programs to load while the disk thrashed away? Frequently took 15-20 minutes. Most people spent most of their time at the computer, waiting for the computer, not the other way around.

It's not an irrational mindset, just an outdated one. I have sympathy for the "Graah! Boot Time! Arghoohah!" zombies because I honestly think the years of using Windows 9x and XP in corporate environments have them PTSD.

 

[Makaveli]

True i've been building pc's for 20 years and every new box and every new version of windows is more stable and requires less rebooting. The metric of how fast my desktop computer takes to boot up has less relevance I think today. However I think on a laptop its more important as I would be sleeping or hibernating that machine far more than a desktop pc.

 

[Rubycon]

Fifteen years ago, the average office PC was rebooted every two hours. (Hooray for Windows 98!)

Firing one up, logging into the domain, etc., waiting for programs to load while the disk thrashed away? Frequently took 15-20 minutes. Most people spent most of their time at the computer, waiting for the computer, not the other way around.

It's not an irrational mindset, just an outdated one. I have sympathy for the "Graah! Boot Time! Arghoohah!" zombies because I honestly think the years of using Windows 9x and XP in corporate environments have them PTSD.

Thank goodness for Cellular IRIX on Origin! :biggrin:

Oh and 17 years ago there were SSDs. Quantum Rushmore IIRC. $$$$$

But the "boot time crybabies" would be in need for some seriously sharp cheese (to accompany the ridiculous whine!) waiting for the likes of Mylex ExtremeRaid 2000, DPT, AMI, etc. post times. Imagine the horror of waiting four MINUTES after turning on your "rig" before reaching the login prompt (AIX, etc.)

But like any spaceship, there's no jumping in and going. Oh no, you have that big checklist to go through. But the wait is worth it. You're flying above all the slow IDE slugs in CISC aka x86 lanes below.

 

[Rubycon]

I've replaced my 750s with P3608s (1.6TB version) and the performance is absolutely stellar! If it's in your budget I highly recommend it.

 

[Makaveli]

I've replaced my 750s with P3608s (1.6TB version) and the performance is absolutely stellar! If it's in your budget I highly recommend it.

Any performance benchmarks from old vs new?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Those things still cost $3600+ for the 1.6TB variant? Woooeee.

 

[Hugo Drax]

The 128mb rushmore in 1997 was about 6500 dollars.

 

[VirtualLarry]

SM951 doesn't have those same long boot times.

Indeed! Mine are lightning fast, for booting.

 

[Makaveli]

Indeed! Mine are lightning fast, for booting.

Doesn't the SM951 have throttling issues due to excessive heat?

 

[DrMrLordX]

http://www.legitreviews.com/samsung-sm951-512gb-m-2-pcie-ssd-review_161689/3

Looks that way.