big question....2xHD in raid 0 or SSD?

This may seem like a noob question, but I know it depends on what i want to use it for.

So since I work with graphics all day long (Photoshop, illustrator, Flash etc) I'd like a snapy system (sometimes I do get to work with 200-300 meg files).
I recently upgarded to 4 gigs of memory which was refreshing, but sometimes I feel my system is just hanging.

I do get to play games from time to time so basicly I want to use my computer in the following way:
- 70% work
- 30% gaming

Right now I have an older 150 gig raptor (WD1500ADFD) which is good though it gets noisy from time to time especially at night and I'm using vista 32 bit as an OS.


Since I've reading reading forums regarding my question I also am thinking of using a smaller sized 16-32 gig SSD as a scratch disk for photoshop. (maybe this might seem funny to use a SSD as a scratch, but worked for a few people)

Anyway my aim is to make my rig faster for those heavy duty stuff that I do, so what do you guys think would be the best to do:

1) buy 2 new HDs 250gig disks(max 320gig anything above would be an overkill) and run a RAID 0 setup (never used it before)

2) look for SSD instead for the OS (looking at the G.Skill falcom 64 gig)

Can you give some advice?
Also what HDs do you think would be good enough for my needs? (WD RE3, Samsung F1 etc... ?)

-No I don't want to buy another 150 gig raptor since this one is noisy enough for me-

My spec:

Vista 32bit SP1
Gigabyte EP45-DS3R
Intel 8400
2x2 gig DDR2 G.SKILL DDR2 PC2 6400
Raptor1500ADFD as a primary for OS+ Samsung HD501LJ+ another older 160 gig samsung HD for storage
Sapphire 4850 Toxic videocard

For your needs, I'd suggest a cheaper setup like the one in my sig. For HDDs I went with two WD 750GB Caviar Blacks. In RAID-0 they do between 200mb/s and 180mb/s! They're also ~$90 each which is cheap for the performance you get. I don't know much about the Samsung F1 line, in terms of durability, but I've heard they're good drives too.

As far as an SSD setup goes, for speed you may want to RAID-0 two smaller SSDs. I suggest using OCZ Vertex SSDs as they have excellent support and perform well. RAID-0 setups are also safer with SSDs as they can't mechanically fail (like your Raptor will probably do to you soon as mine did). Another reason I suggest OCZ is that their engineers are working with Adaptec, Highpoint and Areca to get specific firmware support implemented in their hardware RAID controllers. Eventually for a powerful workstation, you may consider getting a hardware controller if you add more than two SSDs to your system. Either way, whatever you do just get an SSD WITHOUT a JMicron controller.

Also, for your workload, the biggest improvement in performance would likely be a Core 2 Quad CPU. They're kinda cheap now and own at Photoshop. SSE4.1 is your friend sir. I would honestly just stick with RAIDed HDDs, skip the SSDs, and use the extra money to buy a quad core CPU.

wingless said:

For your needs, I'd suggest a cheaper setup like the one in my sig. For HDDs I went with two WD 750GB Caviar Blacks. In RAID-0 they do between 200mb/s and 180mb/s! They're also ~$90 each which is cheap for the performance you get. I don't know much about the Samsung F1 line, in terms of durability, but I've heard they're good drives too.

As far as an SSD setup goes, for speed you may want to RAID-0 two smaller SSDs. I suggest using OCZ Vertex SSDs as they have excellent support and perform well. RAID-0 setups are also safer with SSDs as they can't mechanically fail (like your Raptor will probably do to you soon as mine did). Another reason I suggest OCZ is that their engineers are working with Adaptec, Highpoint and Areca to get specific firmware support implemented in their hardware RAID controllers. Eventually for a powerful workstation, you may consider getting a hardware controller if you add more than two SSDs to your system. Either way, whatever you do just get an SSD WITHOUT a JMicron controller.

Click to expand...

The G.Skill Falcon FM uses the Indilinx controller not the Jmicron. From what I've heard the Falcon is better than the vertex. I've seen reviews that place it keeping up with the intel x25 for all but a small handful of benchmarks (12 out of 15 or something) and it beating out the vertex which costs more and has less storage (4gb for the 64gb vs 60gb comparison).

The more you spend, the faster it can be!

Here is a single Intel X25-E:

SLORider said:

The more you spend, the faster it can be!

Here is a single Intel X25-E:
View attachment 73489

Click to expand...

That's funny. The burst is slower than the average read.... Interesting...

So since I work with graphics all day long (Photoshop, illustrator, Flash etc) I'd like a snapy system (sometimes I do get to work with 200-300 meg files).

Click to expand...

Large files are stored sequentially most of the time, so a HDD RAID will do nicely.

As for using SSD as scratch, it shouldn't really matter since you have 4GB (more than enough) RAM.

Thanks guys for the answers!

@ wingless
Waiting for the price drop of SSDs and those cool Areca Raid controller are a bit out of my budget right now, so I think I1ll just stick to "plain" 2xHD setup.
Dunno about that Core Quad...I'm quite happy with my E8400, but I 'll read a few reviews

I read a few reviews about those Black Caviars and they came out quite good.

@BenF I actually read the same thing..though i1ll wait for some reviws about the new Falcon SSD.. My whole install with everything -considering to update another 4 gig of G.Skill memory and updating to x86 Vista- is about ~80-90 gigs so I would need @ least 2x64 SSDs in RAid 0.

I actualy read some test here on the forum about the RAID 0+1 setup....I think I 'll give that a try...hopefully results will be good

@SLORider Well that Intel SSD looks sweet but that'§s just like buying a custom tuned Ferrari for me right now

@cyberfish Didn't know about that sequential storage thing..I1m not so deeply into this kind of tech, but it's good to know.
And actually I don't have that much stutters since I have 4 GB of RAM