[b][/b]
[i][/i]
[u][/u]
[s][/s]
[code][/code]
[quote][/quote]
[spoiler][/spoiler]
[url][/url]
[img][/img]
[video][/video]
Smileys
smile
smile2
spook
alien
zunge
rose
shy
clown
devil
death
flash
sick
heart
idee
frage
blush
smokin
mad
sad
wink
frown
crazy
grin
hmm
laugh
mund
oh
rolling_eyes
lil
oh2
shocked
cool
[mail][/mail]
[pre][/pre]
Farben
[rot][/rot]
[blau][/blau]
[gruen][/gruen]
[orange][/orange]
[lila][/lila]
[weiss][/weiss]
[schwarz][/schwarz]
David359
Posts: 14 | Last online: 06.23.2017
Date registered
12.21.2016
Sex
not specified
    • Zitat von davidm71 im Beitrag #1591
      Sorry to report what ever slot it was in did not make a difference. Also the legacy rom posted at boot that its running at pci-e 1x4 speed even though the motherboard supposedly has pci-e 2.0 capable slots and gpu-z reports the primary gpu running at 2.0 speeds. According to that review I posted a link to above unless the motherboard can manually set its pci-e speed the ssd will set a lower speed than it should. This is disappointing.
      Sorry to hear that. When your ADATA device arrives I will be curious to know if your PCIe bus operates at rev 2x4. The ADATA device is PCIe 3 which steps down to PCIe 2 on the X58 board. I notice the Plextor has a PCIe 2 controller. I wonder what is making it step down to PCIe 1. You would think it should work at PCie 2.

      EDIT by Fernando: Unneeded part of the fully quoted post removed (to save space)

    • Zitat von davidm71 im Beitrag #1588
      Thanks, Just ordered one. Went with the 256 gb model. Cost $100 more or less.
      About my performance issues with my X58 board I have a theory that maybe
      the slot its in is affecting performance as I have (1 ver 2.0 ) 16X, 1 ver 2.0 (16X), and
      1 ver 2 (16/8) slot hosting the card. Willing to bet I would get better score
      if plugged it into the 2nd Pci-e slot. Anyhow this board has a plex chip I think that controls
      the 16 - 4x rates of the cards plugged in. Also the card could be throttling its own
      link speed and that could be the fault as well according to this interesting review
      I found about the Plextor m6e:
      http://www.overclock.net/t/1489684/ssd-i...express-vs-sata
      Worth a read.
      I think you have something here. I totally forgot to mention that in my experimenting with the X58 board I moved the video card to the second x16 slot and the NVMe is in the first x16 slot. My thought at the time was to maximize NVMe performance. I have the same slot setup that you do with some additional X8 and X4 slots (and a couple PCI slots) that are not really usable due to physical obstruction. I think your logic is right on target and worth another experiment.

    • Here are the urls.
      Deleted
      Ok, None of those will work.
      Go to www.newegg.com and search on the following: adata xpg ssd m.2

    • Not certain how it impacts performance, but the ADATA device I purchased has an on-board NVMe controller so the X58 (legacy, not UFEI) bios can see it and boot from it with no BIOS mods. Perhaps the controller provides some other performance enhancements. I am purely speculating there, I have no facts. The motherboard is GA-EX58-EXTREME rev 1.0. I was pleasantly surprised that the ADATA device was bootable on the X58 board. I have several of these and this makes it seem pretty usable still. I have ordered more of the ADATA devices from newegg.com. There sale has been extended for several more days.

    • ADATA XPG SX8000 M.2 2280 256GB PCI-Express 3.0 x4 MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) ASX8000NP-256GM-C
      Gigabyte X58 Motherboard, 2.6 GHz CPU
      Note: Motherboard is PCIe-2 so it slows down the PCIe-3 NVMe device

      AS SSD As requested:

      [[File:AS SSD Gigabyte X58 with ADATA NVMe.png|none|auto]]

    • ADATA XPG SX8000 M.2 2280 256GB PCI-Express 3.0 x4 MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) ASX8000NP-256GM-C
      Gigabyte X58 Motherboard, 2.6 GHz CPU
      Note: Motherboard is PCIe-2 so it slows down the PCIe-3 NVMe device

      [[File:Gigabyte X58 with ADATA NVMe.png|none|auto]]

    • ADATA XPG SX8000 M.2 2280 256GB PCI-Express 3.0 x4 MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) ASX8000NP-256GM-C
      Gigabyte X58 Motherboard, 2.6 GHz CPU
      Note: Motherboard is PCIe-2 so it slows down the PCIe-3 NVMe device

      Hmm, trying to figure out how to paste a screen shot of CrystalDiskMark here. I must need more caffeine.

    • All, After getting my Samsung 950 booting fine from the outstanding advice way back in this forum I, for some reason was drawn to order an Adata XPG SX800 (NVMe) from newegg.com on a one day flash sale ($109 for the 256GB). I mounted it on an adapter and on a whim I installed it in an older machine with a Gigabyte X58 chip set motherboard. To my surprise the BIOS recognizes the device. The device seems to have an on-board NVMe controller that signs on and provides status as part of the BIOS boot up, like an add on SCSI controller would do. It looks like it scans for other devices and can control up to 8 total. I restored a backup to the device and I was able to boot from it without any BIOS mods.

      The performance is way above AHCI, but a little below the Samsung devices. It is way less expensive than the Samsung devices. There is a sale on the 512GB version for $207.99 for the next two days at newegg.com.

      Enjoy!
      David

    • After having success getting my system to boot from the Samsung 950 Pro, I started looking at some performance data. I am not certain we are getting the expected performance from a modified BIOS. I added a brand new Samsung 850 EVO SATA drive to a SATA 3 port on the MB. Then I ran the Samsung performance tests from Samsung Magician (latest version). The "Rapid Mode" is enabled for the 850, Rapid mode is not available for the 950 Pro. One other variable is that I am booted off of the 950 Pro so there is other activity mixed into the numbers where the 850 EVO is not being accessed by anything else other than the performance test. I am still looking into this as I can afford the time, but I thought I would share this result for thoughtful discussion here.

      I am attempting to attach a screen shot here:

      [[File:2017-01-01.png|none|auto]]

    • Hi,
      Two thoughts come to mind. I was performing these mods on a Gigabyte Z87X board. There as a bios checkbox for boot security (or something close to that). The NVMe module was not bootable until I disabled that setting (I killed hours on that). Second thought, I never tried to install Windows 10. I copied a disk image from a SATA SSD using a tool called Paragon Hard Disk manager. It will copy all that is required from the source disk including the hidden partitions and it will offer to create a new UFEI partition on the target disk. In addition it (optionally) resized the Windows partition to maximize the use of additional space on the slightly larger target drive.

      Paragon Disk Manager was around $50 if I remember correctly (i have owned it for a while). There may be a free trial period. You may wish to try moving an existing installation, or install to another drive that the BIOS recognizes and then copy the image to the NVMe drive.

      Note: My NVMe drive does not appear on any lists (like boot order) in the BIOS. It is the highest number drive (last to boot from) so after you move the image to the target drive you must disconnect the source drive and be certain there are no other bootable drives connected.

      I hope one of these thoughts will be of help to you!
      Good luck!!

    • Reporting results: It is up and running! I am booting from the Samsung 950 Pro NVMe (256MB) on a four lane adapter card. I was able to remove the "SataDriver" in order to make space for the addition of the NVMe module in the Bios image. I have to be careful in the Bios GUI. Some selections will freeze the screen requiring a hardware reset, such as attempting to save a Bios profile with F11. I can't have two physical drives with bootable partitions connected at the same time without conflicts (needs more investigation). There is no way to set boot priority in the Bios with the 950 Pro. It is not visible as a selection anywhere. As long as it is the only bootable drive in the system, then the boot up happens normally and all appears well.

      The biggest issue I had with booting off of the 950 Pro was a Bios setting for security, Boot Security I believe it was. Once I turned that off it booted (after wasting several hours). I think I read that in a thread here or somewhere else, but somehow I had overlooked it.

      Results so far are very promising. I have not yet run benchmarks, but when I copied the drive image from an Intel Sata drive to the 950 Pro, the Sata drive was maxed out and the 950 Pro was barely using 10% to 20% of its capability (These estimates are from my memory last night, not stating them as fact) per the performance monitor tool in Windows 10.

      I appreciate your help very much!!

    • Zitat von Fernando im Beitrag #1110
      Zitat von David359 im Beitrag #1109
      Can you provide any guidance on what modules may be candidates for removal in favor of adding the NVMe module?
      Provided, that your on-board Intel SATA Controller is running in AHCI mode, the stock BIOS module named "SataDriver" (other name: "RaidDriver") will be a very good candidate for a safe removal. This EFI module is only needed and will only be used by systems, where the system drive (drive C:\) is running in RAID mode.
      After having removed this big sized module, there will be enough space for the NVMe EFI module named NvmeExpressDxE.ffs.
      I see the SataDriver, I'll give this a try. I have a Samsung 950 PRO arriving tomorrow. I had initially made an error and purchased the m.2 version of a Crucial MX 300 which is not NVMe. I found that I am not able to to get the Bios to recognize it even though it should look like a SATA drive on the PCIe bus (using an adapter). I'll let you know the results after tomorrow.

      Merry Christmas to you as well and a Happy New Year!

      EDIT by Fernando: Already posted text and unneeded parts of the fully quoted post removed (to save space within this already very voluminous thread)

    • Thank you for this outstanding write up! I have followed your procedures for a GigaByte Z87XUD4H Bios (versions F9, and 10b). Unfortunately it appears that I lack space for the new module. I am guessing there are modules currently in the Bios image that I have no need for, but I am new to Bios mods so I don't have a clue about what could be a candidate to be removed to make space available. I would also be concerned about removing something that then causes the Bios not to initialize something critical in the chip set or some other potential fail mode.

      Can you provide any guidance on what modules may be candidates for removal in favor of adding the NVMe module?

Recipient
David359
Subject:


text:
{[userbook_noactive]}


Xobor Forum Software von Xobor