Recent X299 models are restricting the use of bootable NVMe RAID 0 configurations.
Recent X299 models are restricting the use of bootable NVMe RAID 0 configurations.
I've been looking through reviews and feedback about these boards. The main point seems to be that Intel lets you build as many RAID 0 arrays as you like, but Windows won<|pad|> can't boot from them or recognize the setup. The IRST tool can create the RAID 0 array, but once installed, Windows 10 doesn't detect it. VROC only supports Intel NVMe drives and isn't available yet, so most people can't make a bootable RAID 0 array with Intel NVMe yet. I'm not sure if anyone else has confirmed this. I have a couple of questions: Has anyone managed to create a bootable RAID 0 array using non-Intel NVMe drives? If yes, what were the performance numbers? The Z170/270 boards do support it, but the 4 PCI-e lanes limit the speed to around 3.2GB/s instead of the theoretical 4.0GB/s. I'm curious about getting two Samsung 960s in RAID 0 for my boot drive and two Optane drives using the VROC option.
It's not always about speed. I'm checking if I can actually use them. I have four NVMe drives gathering dust, and I could connect all of them to one Asus card. The next step is figuring out where this info came from and whether there are the same limits as older models like the x199/299 with just 3.2GBs. I also have a non-bootable RAID 0 drive for apps that handles over 8k GB/s sequentially.
If it can't be booted, use software RAID—it's far superior to Intel RAID or you could opt for a hardware RAID card without any concerns. Alternatively, simply use separate drives.
The main goal here is that the x99 motherboards lacked IRST drives or chipset support for bootable RAID configurations. The Z170/270 managed this via its chipset, which provided only four PCI-e lanes, setting a limit. VROC asserts there’s no such restriction, but it relies on direct CPU lanes and requires a special dongle. Some boards have space for the dongle onboard. VROC hasn’t been officially released yet. This situation reaches the x299 board, where Asus advertises a bootable NVM-e RAID 0 without a dongle through the chipset, but Intel insists these RAID 0 setups won’t appear in Windows unless using VROC. In short, it seems the IRST drives were built to enable RAID 0 creation but are restricting other features. They’re aiming for compatibility with NVMe drives, though Windows won’t recognize them without VROC. Personally, I’m curious about the performance boosts—knowing I can achieve over 10K with four drives in a RAID 0 setup, I’m eager to test it.
In reality, NVMe RAID between X99, Z270 and the latest X299 didn't see major changes beyond adding more choices with VROC and the corresponding key. RAID setups using chipset lanes continue to function normally, though they may be limited to around 4GB/s. These configurations remain unrestricted. Using CPU lanes with VROC is a new approach, but currently only supports booting Windows on Intel SSDs. RAID 0 remains the only option without the VROC key, which mainly expands support for RAID 1, 5, 6 or 10. Without considering enterprise hardware, the selection is quite limited and offers little practical benefit for consumers. The VROC feature remains largely unused outside niche scenarios, and it's conceivable that future high-end boards might include VROC support.
In terms of performance, the X299's capabilities sit between the X99 and Z270, offering a middle ground. Unless AMD adopts similar strategies as with Ryzen pricing, we'll likely see comparable pricing for TR in the same performance range. The main advantages are potentially lower costs and better PCIe expansion options.
You misunderstood the x99 boards. If you had access to the PCI-e lanes, I would have 40 lanes available. This would let me run all three m.2 NVMe drives at four times their speed (one on a single card and two on PCI-e cards). I could set up a RAID 0 array using software like IRSt or the disk manager. These arrays would be limited only by the 32GB/s PCI-e bandwidth, allowing seq reads up to 11k. The x199/x299 had restrictions because only four PCI-e lanes could be used by the chipset, capping performance at 3.2GBs, though they still booted. The X99 couldn’t boot directly but could easily distribute four x4 speeds across each drive when lanes were available, which was a much bigger challenge.
That's actually where you're wrong. X99 can host a bootable NVMe array over PCIe chipset lanes, much like Z170/270. However, X99's chipset only has as many as 8 PCIe 2.0 lanes, which in of itself is a restriction. But with how most mainboards are routed, you end up with 1, maybe 2, PCIe 2.0 x1 slots routed through the chipset. This bottlenecks the array heavily, making the only point of doing so to create a larger storage pool. Long and short, super unpractical and a waste of time, but possible.