Hi Everyone,In a never ending battle to utilize FSX to its fullest, I purchased the following SSD, an Intel X25-M SATA 160GB SSD (SSDSA2MH160G2R5). I'm going to keep Windows 7 on my 10,000rpm Raptor and I'll place FSX and all my addons on the SSD.I know there are a few things that need to be done to setup my system to be SSD friendly, just not sure what they are. Guess I could use some help from someone whos already made the switch to SSD. I have an Asus P6T Deluxe V2 motherboard I know I have to change/config the bios, is the only bios change required is to set AHCI?Also what Windows 7 64bit services need to be turned off?.Think the steps needed are as follows.1. Change Bios to reflect AHCI2. Download and install the latest firmware for the SSD3. Partition and format the drive4. Install FSX and all my addonsThanks for the help

How did you do the following ...2. Download and install the latest firmware for the SSD - I have the firmware .iso file but how does one use it?3. Partition and format the drive - Is this done the same way as magnetic drives?I am only using the SSD for FSX.

Hi Everyone,In a never ending battle to utilize FSX to its fullest, I purchased the following SSD, an Intel X25-M SATA 160GB SSD (SSDSA2MH160G2R5). I'm going to keep Windows 7 on my 10,000rpm Raptor and I'll place FSX and all my addons on the SSD.I know there are a few things that need to be done to setup my system to be SSD friendly, just not sure what they are. Guess I could use some help from someone whos already made the switch to SSD. I have an Asus P6T Deluxe V2 motherboard I know I have to change/config the bios, is the only bios change required is to set AHCI?Also what Windows 7 64bit services need to be turned off?.Think the steps needed are as follows.1. Change Bios to reflect AHCI2. Download and install the latest firmware for the SSD3. Partition and format the drive4. Install FSX and all my addonsThanks for the help

Are you sure you got an 'SSDSA2MH160G2R5' model and not some other one like a 'SSDSA2MH160G2GC'??? The Intel Toolbox program will show the SSD's information.NewEgg sent me an older model number in a box with the a newer model number shown on the label. I think they are trying to pull a fast-one.

Are you sure you got an 'SSDSA2MH160G2R5' model and not some other one like a 'SSDSA2MH160G2GC'??? The Intel Toolbox program will show the SSD's information.NewEgg sent me an older model number in a box with the a newer model number shown on the label. I think they are trying to pull a fast-one.

The last two characters in the model number are just whether or not it's a retail box, a single OEM, or a bulk OEM part. They're all physically the same and have the same 3-year warranty.The third and fourth from last characters are the important ones. "G2" is the current Gen2 34nm SSD, but if they sent you one with G1, that's the older 50nm device, and the Intel SSD utility and TRIM do not work on those older devices.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

The last two characters in the model number are just whether or not it's a retail box, a single OEM, or a bulk OEM part. They're all physically the same and have the same 3-year warranty.The third and fourth from last characters are the important ones. "G2" is the current Gen2 34nm SSD, but if they sent you one with G1, that's the older 50nm device, and the Intel SSD utility and TRIM do not work on those older devices.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Thanks much!

Love the information here. Working on a build that will have SSD myself right now.

Hi In INTEL spec sheet of INTEL X-25 M . Chapter 3.5.4 Minimum Useful Life , they warranty 5 years detemine by " The drive well have a minimum of 5 yeas of useful life under typical client workloads with up to20 GB of host write per day " . IF I use SSD for FSX only , I hope it still work properly after 5 years.But So sad to say about 200 write cycle totally in 5 years ( 20 Gb / day )cheer.

I thought Win7 was supposed to disable all the options that are detrimental to the drive automatically when it detects the SSD?http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/0...drives-and.aspx

I thought Win7 was supposed to disable all the options that are detrimental to the drive automatically when it detects the SSD?http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/0...drives-and.aspx

It makes some changes in its handling of the SSD, but they are not comprehensive, and not a one-size-fits-all solution.Win 7 disables defragging by the Windows defragger...but if you use a third-party program, Win 7 doesn't prevent it from attempting to defrag an SSD. I would guess that the better aftermarket defrag programs will eventually detect SSDs themselves and do this automatically.If Win 7 is installed on an SSD. it puts the page file onto the same SSD by default, which has the potential to dramatically increase the volume of data written to the device. Whether that's a problem depends on the system and usage, but I found that having the pagefile on a separate fast HDD makes almost no practical difference in performance on my system.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Hi Bob,The msdn blog specifically states that most page file operations are reads. I am not saying that you are wrong but I am saying that they have a different viewpoint about what the OS does.Snip from MSDN FAQ about a SSD:"Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well.In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find thatPagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1,Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB.Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size.In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD."Is the TRIM functionality that Win7 supports not designed to prevent the type of performance problems over time that we were worried about with OS installations on the SSD.In terms of "aftermarket" defrag programs, that needs to be handled by the user who installed the defrag program. So assuming that you have a vanilla install of the operating system, what post install items should the user have to do to get the best performance out of a SSD that Windows 7 doesn't do automatically when it is detected?By the way, great thread guys. I am researching the viability of solid state for my FSX as well as OS partitions. You guys have contributed a lot of knowledge regarding this subject.

Hi Bob,The msdn blog specifically states that most page file operations are reads. I am not saying that you are wrong but I am saying that they have a different viewpoint about what the OS does.

They do have a different POV...I get the idea that from their perspective one buys a PC and then strives to have the fastest operating system in the West. Most PCs now are being equipped with 4-6 GB of RAM--a large expanse of memory space that makes pagefile access during an FS gaming session relatively rare. Putting the pagefile on the SSD will speed page faults up, but my experience is that makes no discernable difference. Now if you're a power user that has 5-10 memory hungry programs open all the time (CAD, desktop publishing, video editing etc), that might make a bit of a difference. In FS, however, we try to minimize the other processes running to give our application as much of the PC's computing power as possible. If there's enough paging going on that moving the pagefile on your SSD is making a difference, your FS performance is already going to be suffering badly.

Is the TRIM functionality that Win7 supports not designed to prevent the type of performance problems over time that we were worried about with OS installations on the SSD.

TRIM heads off the write slowdowns that occur due to SSD write amplification. The pagefile siting issue isn't performance degradation, it's cumulative wear on the device itself--an MLC-based SSD can only sustain a limited number of erase-write cycles before the NAND cells lose their ability to reliably store data (around 10K cycles is a ball-park figure with current MLC technology). So the size of the drive, and the cumulative volume of data written (reads do not degrade the cells) affect the drive's longevity. It's a judgement call...I don't see a reason to put additional wear on the drive for something that does nothing to enhance observable performance. It might not be unreasonable to put the pagefile on the device with the assumption that they'll be much, much cheaper when it does finally wear out, either.

In terms of "aftermarket" defrag programs, that needs to be handled by the user who installed the defrag program. So assuming that you have a vanilla install of the operating system, what post install items should the user have to do to get the best performance out of a SSD that Windows 7 doesn't do automatically when it is detected?

Programs that do a lot of writing, but that do not need the SSD's speed, are what I look at. An internet browser that gets a lot of use can write out many gigs of data to its cache...remember, it's the cumulative volume of writes, not the size of the cache itself. Programs like Photoshop and most video editors can write out massive amounts of intermediate data in their processing. If you watch movies or other streaming content, that's all written to a buffer file as it passes through your system.I'd also add that I'm not entirely confident in the expected number of duty-cycles in the expected life of an SSD...it's like those figures you see of 300,000 hours MTBF -- those are engineering estimates that have not all been tested beyond a theoretical review.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

They do have a different POV...I get the idea that from their perspective one buys a PC and then strives to have the fastest operating system in the West. Most PCs now are being equipped with 4-6 GB of RAM--a large expanse of memory space that makes pagefile access during an FS gaming session relatively rare. Putting the pagefile on the SSD will speed page faults up, but my experience is that makes no discernable difference. Now if you're a power user that has 5-10 memory hungry programs open all the time (CAD, desktop publishing, video editing etc), that might make a bit of a difference. In FS, however, we try to minimize the other processes running to give our application as much of the PC's computing power as possible. If there's enough paging going on that moving the pagefile on your SSD is making a difference, your FS performance is already going to be suffering badly.TRIM heads off the write slowdowns that occur due to SSD write amplification. The pagefile siting issue isn't performance degradation, it's cumulative wear on the device itself--an MLC-based SSD can only sustain a limited number of erase-write cycles before the NAND cells lose their ability to reliably store data (around 10K cycles is a ball-park figure with current MLC technology). So the size of the drive, and the cumulative volume of data written (reads do not degrade the cells) affect the drive's longevity. It's a judgement call...I don't see a reason to put additional wear on the drive for something that does nothing to enhance observable performance. It might not be unreasonable to put the pagefile on the device with the assumption that they'll be much, much cheaper when it does finally wear out, either. Programs that do a lot of writing, but that do not need the SSD's speed, are what I look at. An internet browser that gets a lot of use can write out many gigs of data to its cache...remember, it's the cumulative volume of writes, not the size of the cache itself. Programs like Photoshop and most video editors can write out massive amounts of intermediate data in their processing. If you watch movies or other streaming content, that's all written to a buffer file as it passes through your system.I'd also add that I'm not entirely confident in the expected number of duty-cycles in the expected life of an SSD...it's like those figures you see of 300,000 hours MTBF -- those are engineering estimates that have not all been tested beyond a theoretical review.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Thanks Bob,So at the end of the day, will the SSD improve the fluidity of FSX and help with those micro stutters that we have all seen? Is it worth the upgrade now or is it more prudent to give the technology another year to mature with the added benefit of prices going down per gigabyte of storage?

Thanks Bob,So at the end of the day, will the SSD improve the fluidity of FSX and help with those micro stutters that we have all seen? Is it worth the upgrade now or is it more prudent to give the technology another year to mature with the added benefit of prices going down per gigabyte of storage?

With my new INTEL X-25 M 160GB SSD, with current bios, the disk light doesn't come on as much as it did with my Seagate. When loading up FSX the first time it takes about 8-9 seconds and there after about 5-6 seconds, and when I fly within the sim it's up at the chosen airport in about 30-40 seconds. Note that I am not using Raid.

Thanks Bob,So at the end of the day, will the SSD improve the fluidity of FSX and help with those micro stutters that we have all seen? Is it worth the upgrade now or is it more prudent to give the technology another year to mature with the added benefit of prices going down per gigabyte of storage?

It...depends.If the microstutters are caused by disk-access delays when scenery is loaded for the first time (it's cached after that), then yes. I ran a head-to-head comparison with the exact same FSX configuration loaded on my VRaptor and on the X-25M, and there was a distinct but subtle increase in smoothness (it was fairly smooth on the VRaptor too). The "chunky" pauses occasionally seen while turning around a very complex airport didn't disappear completely, but they became an occasional small microstutter rather than something like a 500ms pause.But microstutters can also be caused by a lot of other factors...A/V programs, bus saturation from texture loading, DPC latency from a misbehaving controller or driver etc. So an SSD is not a guaranteed panacea (nothing ever is).For my purposes, which includes a lot of development-related tweaking that requires massive numbers of FSX restarts at times, it's absolutely worth having. You can live fine without one, but that said I don't regret building with SSDs.

With my new INTEL X-25 M 160GB SSD, with current bios, the disk light doesn't come on as much as it did with my Seagate. When loading up FSX the first time it takes about 8-9 seconds and there after about 5-6 seconds, and when I fly within the sim it's up at the chosen airport in about 30-40 seconds. Note that I am not using Raid.

And just for comparison, how long did it take on your old Seagate?RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

It...depends.If the microstutters are caused by disk-access delays when scenery is loaded for the first time (it's cached after that), then yes. I ran a head-to-head comparison with the exact same FSX configuration loaded on my VRaptor and on the X-25M, and there was a distinct but subtle increase in smoothness (it was fairly smooth on the VRaptor too). The "chunky" pauses occasionally seen while turning around a very complex airport didn't disappear completely, but they became an occasional small microstutter rather than something like a 500ms pause.But microstutters can also be caused by a lot of other factors...A/V programs, bus saturation from texture loading, DPC latency from a misbehaving controller or driver etc. So an SSD is not a guaranteed panacea (nothing ever is).For my purposes, which includes a lot of development-related tweaking that requires massive numbers of FSX restarts at times, it's absolutely worth having. You can live fine without one, but that said I don't regret building with SSDs.And just for comparison, how long did it take on your old Seagate?RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

I don't remember the timings on the Seagate but probably twice as long.