CPU vs. HD performance

[Firestrider]

Realistically the most I would ever do is run a virus scan, burn/copy an image to/from a disk, and play a two-threaded game off the hard drive.

From what I know all these tasks tax the hard drive just as the CPU. So would a quad-core even be worth it for me, or would the money be better spend on hard drives?

[Charr]

The HDD is the biggest bottleneck of the system, so increasing that would result in benefits. Realisticly, your not going to need a quad.

[Hazaro]

New drives all the way!

[noegruts]

On the other hand, ask the same question in the CPU section and see what answer you get :-)

[Firestrider]

I know WEI is wonky but it gives me a 5.4, 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.4; meaning both my hard drive and cpu index scores are 5.4 (5.6 when cpu is overclocked).

Could I even do two threads of hard drive intensive tasks at the same time, just as I could do two threads of cpu intensive tasks at the same time?

What's the cheapest yet best performing drive configuration I could get if I only needed about 250GB total (My motherboard supports SATA RAID 0)?

[NobodyNowhere]

I would also add one or two more drives to your raid ... Also, dont pay much attention to vista's raiting .. there is much more to it!

--NNN

[Firestrider]

Well actually my drives aren't in RAID 0, since they are PATA Barracuda 7200.9 and I don't have a PATA RAID controller. They are spanned together for 1 logical drive.

I've tried using PATA --> SATA converters but they wouldn't work.

Would it be worth it to get a PATA RAID controller or just get 2x 120GB SATA drives and put them in RAID0? (As I said I won't need more than 250GB)

[Trap05]

2 x 250GB 16mb cache Seagate sata's would be my advice.

[Firestrider]

What about just getting one of these?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816132004

I know I'm cheap and old school :\