# Intel X25-M Seems Slow



## ArmoredCavalry (Mar 10, 2010)

Yesterday I installed my new Intel x25-m 160GB.

I copied everything but Program Files (x86) from my RAID0 to the SSD. Then I made an NTFS link from the SSD to the RAID Program Files (x86).

I could then boot fine from the SSD, and am able to access all my Program Files as if they were on the same drive.

Problem is, there is almost no noticeable performance difference in Windows boot times, or in game loading times (30 seconds for a Bad Company 2 level, from the SSD).

I have run the SSD optomizer from Intel (TRIM for Vista), I have the default Vista drivers for the SSD installed. I have write caching enabled, and the page file is on the SSD.

Any reason that it would be acting so slow?


----------



## ToTTenTranz (Mar 10, 2010)

AFAIK you'll have to do a clean windows install in order to notice the difference.


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Mar 10, 2010)

ToTTenTranz said:


> AFAIK you'll have to do a clean windows install in order to notice the difference.



Yeah, this is what I have been hearing. I'm wondering how I will tell the difference between the clean window install being fast, or the SSD being fast. :\


----------



## Thrackan (Mar 10, 2010)

Try a clean install, if that doesn't help, put your clone back on it


----------



## DanishDevil (Mar 10, 2010)

Even if I swap a motherboard, I usually do a clean install of Windows. That's mostly my own OCD, but if I swap hard drives, I always back up files, wipe my new disk, install fresh, and reinstall/move everything manually.


----------



## TeXBill (Mar 10, 2010)

I got the same drive and ended up doing a clean install. I tried cloning my drive first and didn't see an improvement at all. Then I did a fresh install and I noticed a big improvement with the boot up speed and access speed.  
Do a fresh install as others have stated.....:>)


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Mar 11, 2010)

OK, I will try a fresh install when I get home then and see how it does.

Edit: Didn't notice a big difference with a fresh install of Win 7 on SSD, still takes like 30+ seconds to get to desktop (not counting Bios).

Also, I put Bad Company 2 on the SSD and am getting identical load times as from the HDD (Raid). This seems like something in my system is bottlenecking....


----------



## DanishDevil (Mar 11, 2010)

Maybe it's the SATA controller onboard that's limiting it. IDK how quick those were back in the day and if the ones onboard P55/X58 are any different, but I think most people running SSDs are on Intel Core platforms.


----------



## erocker (Mar 11, 2010)

Just random boot up advice, make sure you have all unnecessary ports turned off in the bios. I've actually found that using different SATA ports on the motherboard can have different boot times too, though I haven't tried that for a while.


----------



## LittleLizard (Mar 11, 2010)

AHCI is enabled?


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Mar 11, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> Maybe it's the SATA controller onboard that's limiting it. IDK how quick those were back in the day and if the ones onboard P55/X58 are any different, but I think most people running SSDs are on Intel Core platforms.



The read/write speeds look great. The access time reports at 0.1ms in HDTune.



LittleLizard said:


> AHCI is enabled?



Yeah. Has to be since I am using RAID.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Mar 22, 2010)

ArmoredCavalry said:


> The read/write speeds look great. The access time reports at 0.1ms in HDTune.
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah. Has to be since I am using RAID*.



Are you running the drive in non member raid? Trim doesn't work if that is the case. Unless you install the latest Intel driver. 

Also you won't notice a difference in speed on a fresh install unless you run something like sanitary erase before the install.

You should have still noticed a difference on the first install for quite a while. My desktop performance felt very snappy when I installed my vertex.

You may want to disable the disk defrag service. It will reduce the lifetime of your drive. I would consider moveing the page file off of the SSD as well but that is up to you.


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Mar 22, 2010)

Just an idea:

it could possible be because of the format of the drive - Vista and win 7 format SSD's correctly to handle an OS when you do a fresh install on one.  Maybe the drive isn't formatted correctly and since you have copied your OS to it may not know.  the drive has to be formatted with the correct file allocation size / offset etc. for an OS to perform correctly.


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Mar 22, 2010)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Are you running the drive in non member raid? Trim doesn't work if that is the case. Unless you install the latest Intel driver.
> 
> Also you won't notice a difference in speed on a fresh install unless you run something like sanitary erase before the install.
> 
> ...



Well the Trim application from Intel ran and said "completed" without throwing up any errors. So I assumed that meant it was working.

I have disabled disk defragging for the SSD. Wouldn't the page file perform best on the SSD? Lower access times seems like it would be perfect for something like the page file which is doing frequent read/writes but not necessarily large chunks of data.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Mar 23, 2010)

ArmoredCavalry said:


> Well the Trim application from Intel ran and said "completed" without throwing up any errors. So I assumed that meant it was working.
> 
> I have disabled disk defragging for the SSD. Wouldn't the page file perform best on the SSD? Lower access times seems like it would be perfect for something like the page file which is doing frequent read/writes but not necessarily large chunks of data.



I thought that you were talking about trim, not the Trim app. I'm not too familiar with Intel drives so I don't know how their app works.

You could disable your page file and never miss it unless an app complains. You don't need a page file on your ssd, it's just a bunch of unnecessary writes.

When it comes to most games I hear that an ssd doesn't make much of a difference tbh. I don't have any games on my little ssd so I can't comment but I know that my desktop performance and little utilities are much more responcive than with my old raid array which is about on par with the 2 640aaks drives that you have.

I don't even know that my os boots faster but my desktop is usable right away. For example as soon as I see my desktop I can start Opera and start browsing what I was before I shutdown right away.

Have you considered giving your southbridge a small bump in voltage? Maybe you could try running HDtune on the ssd and something like ATTO on the raid array to see if there is a slowdown.


----------



## Carl2 (Apr 2, 2010)

I installed the Intel SSD 160GB on a Gateway a few weeks ago.  Gateway has two recovery disks, Vista and a Win 7 upgrade.  The Intel SSD came with cloning software and a Usb drive holder.  The Firmware has to be updated, It should be 02HD updated from 02HA.  The driver should be msahci.  My frist attempt was to try cloning, I got the same boot time and same windows performance index of 5.9,  it also copied the MBR to the SSD.  The second attempt was installing a clean install of Win 7.  Boot time is less than half and the performance index is 7.8.
Carl2


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Apr 2, 2010)

Carl2 said:


> I installed the Intel SSD 160GB on a Gateway a few weeks ago.  Gateway has two recovery disks, Vista and a Win 7 upgrade.  The Intel SSD came with cloning software and a Usb drive holder.  The Firmware has to be updated, It should be 02HD updated from 02HA.  The driver should be msahci.  My frist attempt was to try cloning, I got the same boot time and same windows performance index of 5.9,  it also copied the MBR to the SSD.  The second attempt was installing a clean install of Win 7.  Boot time is less than half and the performance index is 7.8.
> Carl2



Is the Win 7 on the SSD your only version of Windows currently installed?

Because I think another possible issue I had it the bootloader being on the HDD, and reading from that in order to boot to the SSD.


----------



## Carl2 (Apr 2, 2010)

At this time I have the Intel SSD with Win7 OS on it, a Kingston 64 Gb SSD with the programs and apps on it, Norton 360 would only install on the C drive so Intel has that on it also.  I also have the original HD With the Gateway Vista upgrade to Win 7 on it.
  I noticed you mentioned copying files from the raided drives, Important: choosing raid changes the driver for the hard drives it will be iastor and not msahci.  Msahci is needed to use trim while copying files to the drive.  Intel has just come out with a raid setup that supports trim but i don't think you are using it, are you?
  I tried a raided array before I bought the Intel, got the same boot time and an index of 5.9. The solution for me was to do the clean install of Win 7, forget the raid.  I'd make the SSD the boot drive and use the raid for storage.  Be sure to get the new Intel raid setup.
  I'm not familiar with a bootloader.
What is the latest performance index?
Carl2


----------

