what has a bigger affect on RAID 0 speeds

as the topic states i would like to know which has more of an affect on the speed performance of RAID 0.

7200rpm 32mb cache
or
10000rpm with 16mb cache

and also would 2x 320gb with 16mb cache perform as good as 2x320gb with 32mb cache if both are at 7200rpm?

Depends on what you're doing with your drives. If writing large files (video, for example), then I'd go with the larger platters and cache (usually provides better sustained throughput over time). If reading and writing smaller files quite often, then the quicker 10K drives might be suit your more and the smaller cache won't make an impact.

i wont to use it as my windows/game drive. so fast loads and what not. as far as large files go i use dvd decrypter every now and then but thats the max for big files that will be on that drive.

so for those aplications would 2x 7200rpm 16mb cache be ok? i imagine 2x16mb cache drives would be faster then 1x 32 mb cache

Either would be fine, but the 10K drives would be a little snappier.

Well the performance benefit of RAID0 is nothing more than throughput(STR=sustained transfer rate). So the less you manipulate large files, the less the benefit. The better single drive for your use, will also make the better drive in RAID. RAID doesn't make lesser drives perform better, it is just a sum of the drives that make up the array. Cache sizes have little affect on drive performance. If the drives were the same models, but 16 vs. 32 cache, you in no way would be able to tell the difference between them. Sounds like the 10K would be best for you.

do i dare ask if i would notice a (2x)8mb cache being slower?

Albyno said:

do i dare ask if i would notice a (2x)8mb cache being slower?

Click to expand...

You won't notice it being slower because of the drive's cache, you'll notice it slower because most drives with 8MB cache are aging performers.