Intel Launch the new 750 Series range of NVME SSD's in both 2.5" and HHHL Adaptor card versions.

crinkleshoes said:
Shouldn't be much slower... won't really be that much quicker either... windows boot is minimal on an SSD really... where the hard drive comes into the equation.

Motherboards have a greater effect on the boot time.

It could be possible that the motherboard that review have used is a bit slower at picking up the pci-e bridge used for these.

Like if you were to enable raid-0 on two normal SSDs through your onboard raid or pci card... the boot time will actually be slower by a good 5-10 seconds because the post process will have to initialise the raid controller and give you time to be able to select the raid controller configuration.

With Asus X99-S and Samsung SB951 (M2 4x PCI-E)... the boot time is not noticeably different from 256GB Samsung 830 & quicker than when I have 2x 480GH Intel 730 drives in Raid-0.
Click to expand...

Whats your boot time with your Intel 750 series?

Here's an image from the techspot review I'm referring to:

IITd0Rw.gif


I'm in the market for a good PCI-E ssd, thought the Intel may be the one for me, though I'm waiting for the Samsung M.2 NVME drive, since it has way better boot times than the Intel 750.
 
Dave2150 said:
Whats your boot time with your Intel 750 series?

Here's an image from the techspot review I'm referring to:

*photo snip*

I'm in the market for a good PCI-E ssd, thought the Intel may be the one for me, though I'm waiting for the Samsung M.2 NVME drive, since it has way better boot times than the Intel 750.
Click to expand...

I don't have the 750... I have the Samsung SM951 512GB... picked based on the Anandtech review showing it as having better real-world performance than the Intel 750 in the things I will use it for. Although... the difference isn't that great...

Looking at the techspot review, they are using the PCI-Express version of the card.

The other user(s) in this thread may be using the motherboard-connect version of them... whatever that new version of SATA is called...

That will probably make a difference and it could well be because of the reason I stated above.

Motherboards take extra time in POST to enable bootable add-in cards... otherwise they won't be initialised for boot = you can't use it as a boot drive.

Some motherboards you can pick which PCI slots are enabled in the boot sequence one by one... some you can only enable all or none.

This will add significant time to the boot sequence.

I suggest that's what's happening in the techspot review times.

If you must go for PCI-E... rather than M/M2/Sata3/Sata-Express... then consider the capabilities of your motherboard.

Otherwise... realise just how short 5-15 seconds can be... are you really going to be losing that much time on the boot sequence compared to the speed gains you'll see?


FYI: Techspot seem to agree with Anandtech regarding the Samsung SM951 vs Intel 750:

http://www.techspot.com/review/989-samsung-sm951-pcie-ssd/page10.html
 
Last edited:
crinkleshoes said:
I don't have the 750... I have the Samsung SM951 512GB... picked based on the Anandtech review showing it as having better real-world performance than the Intel 750 in the things I will use it for. Although... the difference isn't that great...

Looking at the techspot review, they are using the PCI-Express version of the card.

The other user(s) in this thread may be using the motherboard-connect version of them... whatever that new version of SATA is called...

That will probably make a difference and it could well be because of the reason I stated above.

Motherboards take extra time in POST to enable bootable add-in cards... otherwise they won't be initialised for boot = you can't use it as a boot drive.

Some motherboards you can pick which PCI slots are enabled in the boot sequence one by one... some you can only enable all or none.

This will add significant time to the boot sequence.

I suggest that's what's happening in the techspot review times.

If you must go for PCI-E... rather than M/M2/Sata3/Sata-Express... then consider the capabilities of your motherboard.

Otherwise... realise just how short 5-15 seconds can be... are you really going to be losing that much time on the boot sequence compared to the speed gains you'll see?
Click to expand...

I disagree with you - GPU's use PCI-E, they get recognised very quickly on startup. This wouldn't account for the Intel 750 taking 30 seconds to boot to windows.

I'll either be getting a 500 or 1000GB version, when spending £300+ on an SSD, it's gotta be able to boot up faster than 30 seconds. I have a server with a 500GB velociraptor as a boot drive which boots faster than that!

As said in a previous post, I'll most likely go for the Samsung M.2 Nvme when it readily available.

I just wanted 750 owners to report their boot times, so I could see if the techspot review was true or not.
 
Dave2150 said:
I disagree with you - GPU's use PCI-E, they get recognised very quickly on startup. This wouldn't account for the Intel 750 taking 30 seconds to boot to windows.

I'll either be getting a 500 or 1000GB version, when spending £300+ on an SSD, it's gotta be able to boot up faster than 30 seconds. I have a server with a 500GB velociraptor as a boot drive which boots faster than that!

As said in a previous post, I'll most likely go for the Samsung M.2 Nvme when it readily available.

I just wanted 750 owners to report their boot times, so I could see if the techspot review was true or not.
Click to expand...

I'm talking from knowledge/experience... of bootable add-in cards... which this is.

This is NOT the same as a GPU being recognised/activated ;)

The GPU being picked up is part of a "normal" boot process... as is activating the onboard storage controller... loading the bios... etc etc...

If you add a PCI sata controller, it WILL add time to the boot process. This time loads the controller configuration (some are even like a micro-computer on a card & need to "boot" their own operating system... the rest of the system pauses while this card does this and reports back OK).

Looking at the tear-down of the PCI-E 750, it isn't simply an M2 drive with a full-PCI-Express slot adapter, like a few of the PCI-E SSDs are... it appears more similar too a dedicated PCI-E board.

By default, most modern motherboards will disable this boot-loading sequence... similar even to USB initialisation... so while you can still connect PCI cards and have them function properly in windows... they won't be initialised early enough to load an operating system from... you have to manually enable this function.

This process means you can no longer have "fast boot" enabled... which will add a few seconds to the boot even if you haven't plugged in an extra card & then the card itself will add a bit of time... even if it is simply the time that the motherboard has to check every PCI slot for a bootable card (with this enabled, unless you have each slot manually assignable, it will check every slot and pause the boot process while it does it).
 
My pc takes about 10s to post and then about 10-15s to load Windows, I have the X99 deluxe which has a lot of extras and it all adds to the post/boot time. My Z97 PC boots faster as it has less to initialize/load.
 
My boot time isnt anything blazing fast, seems average as I think I said before.

X99 has too much stuff/controllers to load.
 
crinkleshoes said:
I'm talking from knowledge/experience... of bootable add-in cards... which this is.

This is NOT the same as a GPU being recognised/activated ;)

The GPU being picked up is part of a "normal" boot process... as is activating the onboard storage controller... loading the bios... etc etc...

If you add a PCI sata controller, it WILL add time to the boot process. This time loads the controller configuration (some are even like a micro-computer on a card & need to "boot" their own operating system... the rest of the system pauses while this card does this and reports back OK).

Looking at the tear-down of the PCI-E 750, it isn't simply an M2 drive with a full-PCI-Express slot adapter, like a few of the PCI-E SSDs are... it appears more similar too a dedicated PCI-E board.

By default, most modern motherboards will disable this boot-loading sequence... similar even to USB initialisation... so while you can still connect PCI cards and have them function properly in windows... they won't be initialised early enough to load an operating system from... you have to manually enable this function.

This process means you can no longer have "fast boot" enabled... which will add a few seconds to the boot even if you haven't plugged in an extra card & then the card itself will add a bit of time... even if it is simply the time that the motherboard has to check every PCI slot for a bootable card (with this enabled, unless you have each slot manually assignable, it will check every slot and pause the boot process while it does it).
Click to expand...

The Intel 750 still takes an additional 10 seconds to boot, compared to the Intel SSD DC P3700, which is also a PCI-E nvme add in card, something else it contributing to the increased load times.

Maybe a UEFI bios update will sort this problem and lower the boot time to be more in line with the Intel SSD DC P3700 series, we'll have to see.
 
stulid said:
Yeah, about the same as my Neutron GTX, maybe a wee bit slower, not really timed them.

Maybe I should make a video with fresh installs on both.
Click to expand...

Did you install the Intel nvme driver?
I did not do a fresh install as it would take time so I cloned the old drive to the new one. I had BIOS lockup problems until I moved the card to the third PCIe slot down.
 
Right here we go.

X99 SOC Champion (BIOS F4g)
5960X
16GB Gskill DDR4 2800@XMP
GTX980
WD 2TB Black +WD 3TB Red
Corsair Neutron 240GB GTX and a Intel 750 400Gb SSD


Bios was set to default, XMP loaded and the boot order to look at the SSD first and only, the two HDD's were disabled from the boot order.

I did a fresh install on Windows 10 technical preview on both SSDs, same drivers, same installation order, same disk clean up after, same optimise drive (trim) after.

The only difference is the Intel 750 install had an additional nvme driver/software/patch installed to get maximum speed from it, without this it is a bit gimped.


 
Your boot time look ok to me, my pc takes longer to post and a bit longer to boot, think it’s because the PC has five hard drives + Blu-Ray drive + sound card and is an old install.
 
Can shave a few seconds off if I enable fast boot, but its nothing like using Z97 which has less stuff to initialise.
 
stulid said:
Can shave a few seconds off if I enable fast boot, but its nothing like using Z97 which has less stuff to initialise.
Click to expand...
Yes my Z97 pc boot much faster, the x99 boot time is not that much of a problem really as I only boot the pc once a day. Nice videos, thank for taking the time to provide them.
 
Samsung SM951 is a better deal. It's cheaper per GB, has almost similar speeds, better compatibility with older chipsets and 128/256 GB options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom