AHCI mode

I bought an Intel Turbo Memory, I installed it on my laptop and went to download the drivers for it, it didn't work. Whenever I try to install it, I get the following message:

"this computer does not meet the minimum requirements for installing the software"

However, that was becuase I had to change my laptop to AHCI mode. So I did try changing to AHCI mode and enabling flash memory from bios. However, windows claimed that there was a problem and it ran repair startup utility and was never able to fix that problem. Windows would not start anymore. So, I was forced to change everything back to default in the bios to make the computer work. What should I do?

thanks

 

I've been there and had the same problem. Read this thread, which links to a thread where the problem was solved for the M1330.

Basically, you need to install the right AHCI drivers before enabling AHCI in the BIOS.

John

 

John is exactly right. You need to install IntelMatrix Storage Manager which is the AHCI driver files and on some systems this file can be testy. There are different versions and, in my case anyway, I found the Dell support version and the newest Intel version to be a failure. My system will only work with the version that came on my drivers disk.

This leads me to the first question which is whether your system was shipped with AHCI enabled or not. If it didn't, there can be a trick to exactly how your going to install the driver and I need to know now whether you are going to be reinstalling the entire system first.

Lets start from there shall we?

 

John: I tried the method mention and it did would not install as i already have the latest driver.

Flamenko, The laptop did not come with AHCI enabled. I would rather not reinstall the OS if that is possible.

Thanks for the continuing help!

 

Any help please

 

Ok...I just read your specs and your not gonna like my answer. Your intel turbo memory, even if you get it installed, will do absolutely nothing for your system.

You have 4Gb ram!!!!! Unless you can find a way to use all of that, your system will not be using anything else to go a bit faster anytime soon.

Its the same with readyboost. Let me explain. Readyboost is flash and has a quicker access speed than a hard drive. When your hard drive doesnt have enough ram it send files to pagefil.sys on the hard drive. Your hard drive only has an access speed of about 9-15ms compared to a flsh drive which may be around a second or two. So... when ram is low, rather than sending it to pagefil, it sends it to readyboost or..in your case turbomemory....where it can get to it much quicker.

Its similar to an ssd but lets try the merry-go-round example. I put an object on the merry-go-round and you have to grab it while it spins (hard drive) vice off a desk which is sitting still (flash in the form of ssd/flash drive/turbomem)

I know Im not dead on and ol Scuderia will prob jump in to clean this up, but the teaching points are achieved.

 

I understand that. However, I got the turbo memory for free. I think you'd agree with me to put it in my laptop rather then collecting dust!

 

I'de sell it again but anyway...there is no way you shouldnt be able to turn it on. Maybe because it wan't installed originally, the only cure would be a re-installation then.

Have you tried all the diff AHCI downloads? There is one at Dell and a newer one at Intel.

 

yeah, I tried them... I almost tried everything except reinstallation

 

I have to disagree and I'm sure others who have tested their laptop with the 1GB flash enabled and disabled can as well. Normal system memory is not the same thing as flash memory so it doesn't matter how much system memory you have in concerns to whether or not the Intel Turbo memory can improve your performance in certain areas. System memory is volatile whereas the Turbo memory is non-voltage like a hard drive. When you turn the power off to your laptop your system memory loses all stored information. The turbo memory does not. This is why Vista uses the Turbo memory to load system files because as soon as you power on the laptop they're already there and ready to access.

I have viewed the Anandtech article which reviewed the Intel Turbo memory back in June where they tried to disprove any benefit to using the new technology but IMO their results are debunk and probably showed little benefit because of early driver issues, BIOS incompatibility with the flash, or just poor testing. I never believe anything unless I see at least three sites showing the same type of results. Sony said they weren't going to use the Turbo memory in their new VAIO line because Vista didn't support it yet which is also obviously untrue.

Here are just a few end users who have noticed improved performance from the Intel 1GB Turbo memory.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=175666&highlight=turbo

I noticed the performance boost in booting my laptop right away when I got my new m1330 (T7300, 2GB RAM, 160GB 7200rpm) w/ 1GB Turbo memory. I had an m1210 before with nearly the same exact specs (T7200, 2GB RAM, 160GB 7200rpm). Both were running Vista Home Premium.

 

I have read many of the articles and yet one that supports any speedboost whatsoever except for a few people that you quoted above. Having tried it and having seen many on the site who also have tried it, I have seen absolutely no gain in application loading, startup or any function whatsoever.

Wouldn't you wonder why Intel wouldn't put out a white paper with test results or why , at least I havent seen, any proof positive test results crediting this?

The debate has started (lol). My point is there is lots negating this including the article you quoted which I found to be very credible. Im waiting for something that proves your theory other than Intel saying "It works".


AAAAHHH! And you cheated!!! You can't pick and choose what parts of the post to put forward. [You would be a great politician] There are many who state it absolutely doesn't work including this which I agree totally with and have said all along:

"According to proven benchmarks that were published Intel Turbo Memory provides little, if any performance gain when using 2GB of RAM or more. When using 1GB of RAM it is definitely worth using, but for 2/3/4GB configurations it isn't even worth using it."


With lower amounts of ram such as 512 or 1Gb, readyboost and turbo memory work great. You will visibly see a difference because there is no ram abailable so it uses this.

To get away from that, if you read the intel article closely it describes how turbomemory takes frequently used programs (less than 512/1Gb?) and stores them there if they are used frequently. Well hello Intel!!!! Thats called Superfetch and is already in place by MS in Vista.

 

Outside of the Anandtech article in which the tests were run several months back, please link me to some of the other articles you have read that have shown performance differences between the same laptop with the Turbo Memory enabled and disabled. Please also link me to other users on this board that have tested the Intel Turbo memory both enabled and disabled and can be quoted as saying they didn't see a performance advantage. The user quote you referenced is from a user I doubt even has Turbo memory installed on his laptop. His supporting knowledge on the subject is likely nothing more than the dated Anandtech article.

I'm sitting here running two nearly identical laptops side by side with the only major difference being the new Santa Rosa platform and Intel Turbo Memory and I can tell you the m1330 boots and loads applications faster. Like I said previously, it's not something I noticed through running tests. It's something I noticed right away when I first fired up my m1330 when I received it.

Also, I will reiterate again. System memory and flash memory are not the same. One is volatile and one is non-volatile. With the Turbo memory the system files are already loaded and ready to access as soon as the laptop is turned on. With RAM the system files have to be accessed on the hard drive and THEN loaded into the RAM. Anything could of effected the results Anandtech found in their tests. That's why I want to see more than one conclusive, and hopefully more recent, article that tells me the performance advantage I see isn't real.

 

Lol. I am very familiar with flash and NAND non-volative memory. I've been sitting here running tests on 4 different SSDs all day. I just also finished reading a 42 page whitepaper on this specific memory and its uses in aerospace and criticality in military operations.

If you see below, my strength here in this site is exactly what we speak of. I tried and tested the Turbo card (as I call it) on one M1330 and the other was of identical configuration. No difference at all. I also, if you will check my article linked through my Intro to SSD article below, did extensive comparisons between the M1210 and M1330, the latter having the Santa Rosa chip. The m1330 starts much quicker even with identical hard drives. I think you almost mentioned this above.

In this debate, we have to deal with hard facts. All the users you mentioned above are almost negated two to one by atleast that and 3 other exact threads on NBR.

Now, to equal the Anandtech article, which is one of the top 3 digital sources on the internet worldwide by the way, just find me an article that contradicts that anywhere on the web. (hint, hint...I just looked)

Next, as with each and every other piece of flash/NAND memory put out, there will be a white paper or, at the very least, recorded results of the success of that piece of equipment. Are we able to find any with respect to the Turbo Card? I can only find the Intel garbage which, quite frankly contradicts itself and seems to be a copy on MS Superfetch specifications.

In closing, Im quite willing to be wrong and concede my point but need to be shown the light. I haven't see it having searched many times before.

 

i get better battery life on my laptop with an sd card for readyboost...

its not faster, but i get an extra 20 minutes (ish) while just surfing the net.

 

I don't question your knowledge on the subject flamenko, or the tests you have ran yourself. I'm asking you to provide credible articles from other sites besides the ONE review done by Anandtech early on that shows performance tests between the Intel Turbo memory enabled and disabled. Also, please link me to these other three exact threads so that I can look over them for myself.

And even though Anandtech is a very popular resource for hardware articles I wouldn't rank their reviews as always being 100% completely credible. Anand Lal Shimpi (the site owner) has done a number of reviews that I and many others have found to be very questionable and even biased at times. He's a smart guy but like anyone can make mistakes in his testing methods. I've been involved in a number of heated debates that included results from an Anandtech article and the results didn't always later hold true in the end after further reviews were done by other sites.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=175666&page=2&highlight=turbo

 

eheheheh We are kinda backwards here. Most people and companies provide credible sources that something works well, not vice versa.

Thusfar the only thing of reliability we have is that of Anandtech. In a good debate, you would run off and find your credible sources and provide them then my turn again.

As for the sites, search "turbo memory" and just go with the ones with the words in the title.

 

Wow I could fill this site with the articles negating turbomemory from major sources on the internet.

Here is what number 2 computer shareholder HP had to say:

In contrast, HP claims that Turbo Memory represents poor value and that it limits flexibility. Speaking to ZDNet UK, HP's senior category manager for business notebooks in the U.K. and Ireland, Steven Gales, said the company decided to omit Turbo Memory as a result of internal tests. "We have done quite a bit of research on this [to see] whether there is any true value for our customers, rather than taking what is available and putting it in," he said.

Steve Doddridge, senior notebook technology consultant for HP Personal Systems Group for Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), added: "We looked at the baseline system performance of a standard system (with 1GB of RAM) without any Robson or ReadyBoost type of technology added, and we then compared that to the same system with Robson, and the same system but just with an (equivalently sized) SD card or USB stick."

Using Intel's benchmark test for evaluating the performance of Turbo Memory, HP's team did see the improvements in performance that Intel had predicted. However, because 1GB of Turbo Memory is effectively split into two--with one half serving ReadyBoost and the other ReadyDrive--adding a 512MB SD card or a 512MB USB stick to the baseline system resulted in the same improvements.

The greatest improvement came as a result of adding more actual RAM to the system. "We added 1GB of RAM and saw a much higher improvement in performance compared to using any of the ReadyBoost or Robson technology," Doddridge said. He added that: "If you have enough system RAM in the system already, ReadyBoost doesn't give you a lot."

 

Yeah I looked over the article about HP's choice to leave out Intel's Turbo Memory as an available option in their current line of laptops. Keep in mine that Sony also did this stating that Vista didn't support Turbo memory yet and wouldn't until Vista SP1 was released lol.

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /...h-over-vista-support-to-intel’s-turbo-memory/

HP and Sony may have decided not to currently adopt the Turbo Memory but most of the other major OEM's such as Dell, Lenovo, Asus, Acer, and Toshiba have.

HP speaks of the performance from ReadyBoost in Intel's benchmark test however they don't speak of any tests ran concerning ReadyDrive performance which would involve boot times and battery life as well as performing real world application tests for the ReadyBoost.

Another reason I don't really put much weight into the results shown in the Anandtech article is because they were obviously having trouble even confirming whether or not the Intel Turbo Memory was enabled at first and then never went on to say how they went about disabling the Intel Turbo Memory and confirming that it was actually in fact disabled.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3009

Also in that review I see no tests showing actual Vista OS boot times. They ran a PC Mark benchmark demo as their primary method of testing. Benchmarks cannot always be equated to real world performance, especially with new technology and a new OS like Vista. And in their ReadyBoost performance test (they only ran one test) they never even compared ReadyBoost performance with 2GB or more of RAM with ReadyBoost enabled.

The thing to remember most importantly is that ReadyBoost and ReadyDrive are two separate entities and it is ReadyDrive performance we're most concerned about here with using 2GB+ of RAM. It is the small system files being stored on the NV flash that will benefit the most from things like Intel Turbo Memory because of the very low latency. Larger files won't as much because of the slow read/write nature of flash memory.

http://apcmag.com/6197/lenovo_s_plan_for_double_disk_notebooks

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877-6060817.html

I'm just as interested in learning more about this technology as anyone else though since I haven't done any research on it until now.

 

Wow!!! Very Impressed worth the Rep I just threw at you!!!!

 

can we get back to my now topic please

 

I just find it funny that NON Turbo Memory users claim that they haven't seen performance increase, while the users who ARE using it do.

Let's stop quoting hearsay and just start experiencing it yourself....

 

i didn't see any noticeable performance change except battery-wise improvement.

 

Did you install xp?

I agree with the others, maybe you should attempt to format, with ahci enabled from the jump. You don't want to do that, and keep looking for other suggestions, but I think there are not any good suggestions other than what has been provided. Of course those suggestions don't work.... format....

 

I have a D630, but it also uses the Intel Matrix AHCI

For XP I used this:
(Yes the IBM drivers, not dells. And as I said before I have a D630)
http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=MIGR-62909

For Vista I used this:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1193062

This didn't work for me:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=164159&page=2