Intel shows off SSD overclocking in public for the first time

Last week, an unconfirmed Internet report claimed that Intel was going to show off how end users can overclock their SSDs for the first time during next week's IDF conference. As it turns out, the SSD overclocking story is true, but Intel decided to jump the gun a bit and offered PAX Prime attendees in Seattle a chance to see this new method in action ahead of IDF.

As reported by Legit Reviews, the demo showed that Intel is adding the SSD overclocking feature to its already released Extreme Tuning Utility tool. The software will be able to overclock two aspects of an Intel SSD. One is the controller clock speed and the other is the speed of the NAND Flash chips inside.

On the SSD that Intel used in the demo (a 480 GB drive), the controller speed was increased from 400MHz to 625MHz via the Extreme Tuning Utility. The NAND Flash speeds were also boosted from 83MHz to 100MHz with the same software. Users can boost one setting or the other but the PAX Prime demo indicated that boosting both with the tool resulted in an even bigger overall performance jump. The article states:

The sequential read increased to 493.38MB/s from the default of 474.27MB/s, a jump of 4%. The sequential write speed saw a much better gain jumping to 431.32MB/s from 400.82MB/s, a gain of nearly 8%. The overall AS SSD score went from 918 to 1066, which is a performance gain of 16.1%.

Intel indicated during the PAX Prime demo that it would charge more for its SSDs that can be overclocked but details were not revealed. More information about the SSD overclocking will still be offered at the IDF conference in San Francisco on September 10th.

Source: Legit Reviews | Image via Legit Reviews

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Intel Core i7-4960X Ivy Bridge-E Review: New flagship, old flagship

Next Story

Leaked Nokia 'Bandit' screenshot shows Windows Phone for large screens

25 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

If regular overclocking back in the day (and probably still today) ran the risk of destroying your hardware, what makes Intel think that taking an even greater risk at losing your data is something we're all in to?

I'm sure hardware enthusiasts are pleased though. This is pretty cool if the benchmark numbers are all you really cared about, but in the end I'd like to see where it caused real world performance gains (maybe in enterprise area manipulating/transffering large amounts of data???).

4% and 8%?? on already fast drive? not interested yet. SSD is not a bottleneck on gaming systems at all right now, like the processor of video card were.

Pass....the LAST device I overclocked was the Celeron 300A to 450mhz...
If I want more performance with 100% stability, I'll just get a faster device.

Total gimmick to sell to Intel branded SSDs to the OCing community. For most of us, this has almost no practical value since no sane person would be willing to sacrifice their SSD in order to attain such a negligible return which is only measurable using synthetic benchmarks.

Wow, my Samsung 840 Pro, and now 840 EVO blow those numbers away with no overclocking. Intel should be ashamed and get out of the SSD busienss.

Haha so to gain about 16% increased performance you need to overclock by 56% + 16% = 72% AND lose valuable lifespan...
Wow, what a complete waste of time.

You're overclocking one chip by 56% and another by 16%, unless you've got a better way to work out the overall overclock?

I would like to know in how to triple the SSD life-expectancy instead,
which mean i can re-write more G/TB to the SSD, before i need to replace the SSD,
but alas, that bad for economics that based on planned obsolescence.

glen8 said,
The performance gains won't be noticed in the real world

Exactly, the speeds you get out of this vs the risk of loosing data are much higher it just doesn't seem beneficial. You would benefit more from just getting a PCIe SSD.

But the more data you lose the faster the SSD would get since it would have less NAND cells to address! There won't be limits!!1!

Co-ords said,
I assume this would shorten the life expectancy of the drive? If so, I would NOT be interested!
Like any other device, yes it would.

exactly what I was thinking. This must be for specialised server farms with raid arrays, who can afford the odd dead drive.