@Gab007 :
Welcome at Win-RAID Forum!
For users like you have started >this< thread already in May 2013 and kept it up-to-date until now. Please look into the table, which is at the bottom of the start post.
Regards
Dieter (alias Fernando)
https://onedrive.live.com/?id=5014229B9E…014229B9E752333
The directory name to the drivers should be 14.0.0.1143, not 14.0.0.1134.
@dgammar :
Welcome at Win-RAID Forum and thanks for your info!
The folder name is now corrected - thanks!
Regards
Dieter (alias Fernando)
@ all:
Update of the start post
Changelog:
- new: 32/64bit Intel RST(e) drivers v15.0.0.1031 dated 02/09/2016
- new: Intel RST(e) Drivers & Software Set v15.0.0.1031 dated 03/21/2016
Notes:
- Although these drivers are the ones with the highest version number and the first ones from the v15 line, they are not the latest Intel RST(e) drivers (which are still the v14.8.9.1053 ones dated 04/21/2016).
- These new AHCI/RAID drivers are digitally signed by Intel and usable with all Windows Operating Systems from Win7 up.
- Only Intel 8-, 9-, X99 and 100-Series Chipsets are natively fully supported by these drivers.
- Thanks to Pacman resp. Station-Drivers for having published the source package.
Meanwhile I have installed the complete Drivers & Software Set v15.0.0.1031 onto my Z97 system.
Here are some pictures:
Good luck with these new Intel AHCI and RAID drivers!
Dieter (alias Fernando)
Update of the start post
Changelog:
- new: 32/64bit Intel RSTe AHCI & RAID drivers v4.5.4.1030 WHQL for Win7 dated 04/29/2016
- new: 32/64bit Intel RSTe AHCI & RAID drivers v4.5.4.1030 WHQL for Win8-10 dated 04/29/2016
- new: Complete Intel RSTe Drivers & SoftwareSet v4.5.4.1031 dated 06/08/2016
Notes:
- The above mentioned AHCI/RAID drivers are WHQL certified by Microsoft and usable with the related Windows Operating Systems. The Installer of the complete Set can be run with all Windows Operating Systems from Win7 up.
- Only Intel C600/C600+ Series Chipsets like X79 and X99 are natively supported by these drivers.
- Thanks to Pacman resp. Station-Drivers for having published the source package.
Good luck with these new Intel RSTe drivers!
Dieter (alias Fernando)
@Fernando
Installed and tested: 64bit Intel RSTe AHCI & RAID drivers v4.5.4.1030 WHQL for Win8-10 dated 04/29/2016
Works fine and stable on my ASUS Sabertooth X99 W10 x64 v1511 handling 4 SSDs in pure AHCI mode.
Hi!
I’m preparing for a major upgrade which includes: Asus ROG x99 Strix Gaming motherboard, i7-6850k CPU, 32GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4 (Quad formation), and Samsung 850 Evo 500GB SSD (I’ll also add a few mechanical HDDs I have after the OS is installed). All this will run Windows 10 64 bit.
My question is: which RST drivers and/or version is optimal for my purposes?
Thanks!!
Please have a look into the just updated start post of >this< thread. You will find the related drivers and a table with an overview near the bottom of the post.
@ all:
Update of the start post
Changelog:
- new: 32/64bit Intel RST(e) drivers v15.0.0.1039 WHQL dated 05/23/2016
- new: Intel RST(e) Drivers & Software Set v15.0.0.1039 dated 06/14/2016
Notes:
- These new AHCI/RAID drivers are WHQL certified by Microsoft and usable with all Windows Operating Systems from Win7 up.
- Only Intel 100-Series/C230 Chipsets and Systems with an Intel Skylake CPU are natively fully supported by these drivers.
- Thanks to Station-Drivers for having published the source package.
Good luck with these new Intel AHCI and RAID drivers!
Dieter (alias Fernando)
I don’t know if someone can help me with the SOFTWARE for Intel RST. When I try to run the Software, not the drivers, the UI doesn’t work. I check the Event Viewer and it looks like IAStorUI.EXE is crashing because of .NET CLR.DLL? Can someone explain to me how to fix this? It used to work, but for some reason it stop working now
I already tried unistalling and then reinstalling the Intel RST software, but I still can’t open the User Interface to change the settings.
Please help, thanks
@mbze430 :
Welcome at Win-RAID Forum!
The Intel RST Software needs a previously installed .NET Framework 3.5, which is ot present by default.
So you have to install this additional feature from within the Control Panel > “Programs” first.
After having done it, reboot and run the RST Software again. If it should still not work, reinstall the RST Software. After the next reboot it will work.
Good luck!
Dieter (alias Fernando)
Hello,
15.0.0.1039 don’t want to install for me at all. Tried the method “search for driver software in this location” when updating the driver, selected the folder with 15.0.0.1039 and output is: the best driver is already installed (even when updating from standard ahci driver that comes with Windows). I am on Windows 8.1 and have asus x99-a mobo. Same thing was happening with 14.10 drivers. I don’t want to select the inf manually during the installation because the fact that this is happening means there is something wrong.
EDIT: it seems that these new drivers do not have VEN ID of my mobo’s controller at all (VEN_8086&DEV_8D02).
I don’t agree with you: The manual driver installation is very easy and safe, if you know the related Controller incl. its DeviceID and the name of the appropriate *.INF file.
Additional advantage: This way you will not get any unneeded bloatware installed.
Yes, the Intel SATA AHCI Controller with the DeviceID DEV_8D02 is natively not supported by the original driver files, but it is no problem to get such drivers installed, if you take the mod+signed variant of them (look >here<).
I don’t agree with you: The manual driver installation is very easy and safe, if you know the related Controller incl. its DeviceID and the name of the appropriate *.INF file.
Additional advantage: This way you will not get any unneeded bloatware installed.
You probably misunderstood what I meant by that sentence. I was simply stating a simple fact: if the driver fails to install via “search for driver software in this location” there is something wrong. What is wrong is either I downloaded 32bit version or your description of the driver, which I counted on, is wrong. Later I found that x99 is not natively supported like you said, so you might want to remove that from your description. That is all I was talking about in regards to the word “wrong”. So if the x99 is not natively supported I have no intention to try to force it to install via choosing the inf file manually or use moddified driver. I wasn’t even remotely talking about how safe or unsafe is choosing the inf file manually (despite it could be considered as unsafe in this case).
Speaking of choosing inf file manually vs “search for driver software in this location”, there is only one difference: If you have multiple inf files in the driver folder the second method searches through them for you until it finds proper ID in proper inf file and then installs the driver the same way as if you selected that inf file manually. Never seen any driver that would magically install any additional bloatware via “search for driver software in this location”.
@Fernando ,
I have installed v15.0.0.39 on ASUS Sabertooth X99, performance is quite good.
I have installed v15.0.0.39 modded (universal) on ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe, performance is also quite good.
@Icydead :
Thanks for your statement. Yes, I obviously misunderstood your previous post.
I agree with you, that this is the safest way to get an appropriate driver installed, which is either newer or better digitally signed than the currently running one. On the other hand it is a fact, that a later compiled or WHQL certified driver is not always the “best” one. Users, who have already done comparison tests or definitively know, that an older or not WHQL certified driver version is really the best for a certain device and its usage, will not be able to get this driver installed by following your advice. If they try it, they will get the misleading message “The best driver has already been installed”.
Updated:
You are right. Meanwhile I have corrected the start post of this thread regarding this point.
Yea I agree.
Regarding the X99 with Skylake CPU - that combination does not exist.
EDIT by Fernando: Unneeded part of the fully quoted post removed (to save space within this already very voluminous thread.