Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel Confirms, Replicates SSD Firmware Bug

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 31 comments
Tags :

Intel now working on a fix.

Late last month, Intel released a firmware update for its second-generation 34nm X25-M solid state drive line that adds support for the TRIM command--which keeps SSDs operating at a higher level of performance.

Sadly, instead of getting performance benefits, some users running Windows 7 64-bit found that the firmware bricked their precious SSDs--definitely not the effect that anyone wanted.

Intel pulled the firmware following the failure reports. The chip giant today confirmed that it's been able to replicate the fatal flaw that has plagued users.

According to the Register, Alan Frost of Intel's NAND Solutions Group wrote: "Intel has replicated the issue on 34nm SSDs - X25-M - and is working on a fix."

It seems that Intel is asking for outside help to resolve this issue, as Frost added, "Intel is seeking direct feedback on this issue from members of the [Intel Support Community]... asking them to send their drives directly to Intel to expedite the analysis of the issues. This action will enable us to more quickly generate a resolution for this issue."

Display 31 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 22 Hide
    doomtomb , November 6, 2009 6:06 PM
    Intel has been slacking recently. Exorbitant prices and things that don't work, disregarding USB 3.0 as unimportant... wow... Intel needs to get slapped in the face right about now.
Other Comments
  • 22 Hide
    doomtomb , November 6, 2009 6:06 PM
    Intel has been slacking recently. Exorbitant prices and things that don't work, disregarding USB 3.0 as unimportant... wow... Intel needs to get slapped in the face right about now.
  • 2 Hide
    Onyx2291 , November 6, 2009 6:07 PM
    Oh man that sucks to have that bricked. Unfortunate for an update like that would cause that. I don't have one but hope a fix comes up soon.
  • 0 Hide
    El_Capitan , November 6, 2009 6:09 PM
    I've been commenting since forever that Intel's X25-M is an overpriced piece of dud that for some reason OEM's only use for SSD's. Crucial's M225 series and Corsair's P series are the ones to get.

    Too bad every distributor out there is rising their SSD prices for Black Friday (day after Thanksgiving), so that when they go on sale, they get back to the already pricey $350 pricetag. No illusion, check out all the prices, SSD's for 128GB are hitting $450, when just 7 months ago they were at $280.
  • 4 Hide
    lubitz_420 , November 6, 2009 6:16 PM
    good to see they don't just try to sweep the problem under the rug by offering a replacement to those who lost their drive functionality and then just letting it trail off into oblivion +1 to solving the problem rather than hiding it
  • 2 Hide
    spectrewind , November 6, 2009 6:33 PM
    ssalimSince when did "bricked" become a word...?


    See the word "Meh" for how this happens. ;o)
  • -7 Hide
    ctbaars , November 6, 2009 6:34 PM
    @ El_Capitan. I'm having a hard time finding a post by you that says, "Intel's X25-M is an overpriced piece of dud that for some reason OEM's only use for SSD's"
  • -3 Hide
    El_Capitan , November 6, 2009 6:36 PM
    I like how I get a thumbs every time I comment on the Intel X250M, but on all my other comments always gets a thumb's up. There's some Intel fanboy's in this thread. :) 
  • 3 Hide
    El_Capitan , November 6, 2009 6:40 PM
    ctbaars@ El_Capitan. I'm having a hard time finding a post by you that says, "Intel's X25-M is an overpriced piece of dud that for some reason OEM's only use for SSD's"

    I guess I found one Intel fanboi. I don't post threads like that. I only comment on the news sections. They're probably hidden because the Intel fanboi's like giving my comments the thumbs down.

    You'll find me repeatedly telling people that the Prices per Storage and Performance is vastly inferior (besides throughput) to that of the once-cheaper Crucial CT128M225 and Corsair P128. There was even an article a few months back noting the comparisons (but on 256GB versions).
  • 2 Hide
    El_Capitan , November 6, 2009 6:45 PM
    ctbaars@ El_Capitan. I'm having a hard time finding a post by you that says, "Intel's X25-M is an overpriced piece of dud that for some reason OEM's only use for SSD's"


    Intel to Ship Value-Based X25-X SSD in Q4
    10-16-2009 at 09:25:58 PM
    Besides for throughput, Corsair's CT128M225 and Crucial's P128 are much better overall. Plus, I'm starting to get rather annoyed. What's with this new business model over the last few years? I remember when the latest and best model got the high price tag, then dropped in price as a newer and better model came out. Nowadays, the latest model price stays the same (or in SSD's cases, goes up) when a newer but lower performance model comes out.

    Intel Pulls X25-M G2 TRIM Firmware Update
    10-27-2009 at 11:44:36 PM
    For those that put a thumbs down on my last post about the Intel X-35m... haha.

    *****

    Well, if you fanboi's don't keep giving a thumb's down to my comments, you'd probably have read them.
  • -1 Hide
    El_Capitan , November 6, 2009 6:49 PM
    ctbaars@ El_Capitan. I'm having a hard time finding a post by you that says, "Intel's X25-M is an overpriced piece of dud that for some reason OEM's only use for SSD's"

    Oh yeah, another hidden one.

    New Intel 34nm X25-M SSD Firmware Brings Impressive Performance Gains
    10-26-2009 at 02:02:40 PM
    A new firmware for the Intel X25-M G1 is nice and all, but the SSD still fails price per performance per space against Crucial's M225 and Corsair's P128/P256. All you get with the X25-M G1 is great I/O performance. Write speeds are still pretty low compared to going up to 200MB's W/s.

    Intel X25-m = 160GB, $659.00, 250 MB/s Read, 70 MB/s Write
    Crucial M225 = 256GB, $675.00, 250 MB/s Read, 200 MB/s Write
    Corsair P256 = 256GB, $719.00 (free shipping), 220 MB/s Read, 200 MB/s Write

    Prices are from Newegg's retail prices. You can get them cheaper other places and OEM.

    *****

    gg, no re
  • 0 Hide
    anamaniac , November 6, 2009 6:49 PM
    Well, atleast they're fixing it.
  • -2 Hide
    ctbaars , November 6, 2009 7:09 PM
    rofl! Thanks, El_Capitan. I guess you're a fan of Corsair's CT128M225 and Crucial's P128's ;) 
  • 4 Hide
    El_Capitan , November 6, 2009 7:20 PM
    ctbaarsrofl! Thanks, El_Capitan. I guess you're a fan of Corsair's CT128M225 and Crucial's P128's

    I'm a fan of the better products, then put pricing into the equation. Intel, AMD, NVidia, ATI, Crucial, Corsair, Kingston, Western Digital, Seagate, etc...

    That's what Tom's Hardware was supposed to be about with their articles, but it's becoming less and less that way.
  • 0 Hide
    goodguy713 , November 6, 2009 7:59 PM
    well if they can drag usb 3.0 out longer then they stand to make more money .because they can offer it as a massive upgrade. right now there is no real pressure on them to put out faster cpu's or add usb 3.0 because they are on top of the market. AMD is still at best a year behind them. also i would not be surprised if some thing else was holding them back. usb 3.0 would be awesome to have thing is even the ssd drives barely are able to keep up with the maximum read cycles ..
  • 2 Hide
    cdillon , November 6, 2009 9:11 PM
    @El_Capitan: You're only looking at Sequential read/write performance. If that's all you really care about then, yes, the Intel drives are over-priced for what they give you. But take a look at random read/write performance and especially performance scaling when the queue-depth rises on the Intel drives. They blow those cheaper drives completely out of the water on random or heavily concurrent workloads where sequential rates don't matter nearly as much. The Intel drives are more balanced instead of trying to focus too much on sequential transfer rates. The whole wide world of computing isn't made just for average desktop users, there ARE other needs out there.
  • 0 Hide
    rippleyhakd , November 6, 2009 11:10 PM
    I dont know what scares me more.. A backpedling internet guy, or a forum stalker that actually has remarks from 20+ days ago, at his finger tips..
  • 0 Hide
    digitalrazoe , November 6, 2009 11:39 PM
    hmm... looks like I will keep using my "spinners" for a long time to come. ( $99 dollar 1.5TB 60MB avg bandwidth harddrive failure or a 600+ 160gig 200MB SSD failure ?) yup.. I will take the slow lane for now ( you spin me right round baby right round..)
  • -2 Hide
    El_Capitan , November 6, 2009 11:59 PM
    rippleyhakdI dont know what scares me more.. A backpedling internet guy, or a forum stalker that actually has remarks from 20+ days ago, at his finger tips..

    Yeah, like clicking on Forums and See All threads is a difficult thing to do... I'd go with the backpedaling internet girl.
  • -3 Hide
    El_Capitan , November 7, 2009 12:18 AM
    cdillon@El_Capitan: You're only looking at Sequential read/write performance. If that's all you really care about then, yes, the Intel drives are over-priced for what they give you. But take a look at random read/write performance and especially performance scaling when the queue-depth rises on the Intel drives. They blow those cheaper drives completely out of the water on random or heavily concurrent workloads where sequential rates don't matter nearly as much. The Intel drives are more balanced instead of trying to focus too much on sequential transfer rates. The whole wide world of computing isn't made just for average desktop users, there ARE other needs out there.

    Of course, but if you look at all the desktops and laptops that can be customized in the market for average desktop users, they go with only the Intel SSD's. Any Enterprise user out there for servers will still go with SCSI drives than the Intel SSD. They won't offer the Intel SSD for servers, and for good reason.
Display more comments