• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

go raid 0 or get raptor ?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

yokomo_

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Location
1337 leet street , London ,England
Im getting sick of things taking for ever to load (bf2 players you know what i mean) question is whihc would give the most benefit ?
option
A)get 1 posibly 2 new small aka cheap drives and raid them(2 if i cant find a suitable partner for my maxtor 160)
or
B)get a 74 gig raptor which will cost slightly more than the 2 drive raid.
rest of my system is a bottle neck before u ask.. see sig :)
 
I've never run RAID myself but I do have a Raptor. When I threw this Raptor in I wasn't expecting much but it gave me quite a bit. :) Load times for my games have significantly decreased. I mostly play CS1.6 and it loads before I can say hot fudge sundae.
 
Both. Put Raptor's in RAID ;)


Personally, when I had a single 74G Raptor (8MB Cache)....2 x SATA drives in RAID 0 outperformed it. But with the newer 16MB models, who knows!
 
ok looks like raid it is , next question do i definatly need 2 idential drives or would v close be ok ? as i would rather just get a single 160 to go with the one ive go rather tham buy 2 new drives (cant sem to find an exact same drive)
 
I recently set up raid over 3 80GB Seagate drives. definitely more snappy.

Try and get as close a drive as you can to match, definitely the same make. one of my drives is a slightly different model number, but has the exact same amount of space.
works a charm.
 
In RAID'ed drives. The slowest and smallest drive will become the totom for the setup. i.e. - It will determind the size and speed of the array.

Since the array will try and match to the slowest and smallest drive. It does not have to be a perfect match. If you want the most out of it. Try and get the same size and speed drives. It does not have to be the same brand or model. I know on my board, I can even use a mix of SATA and PATA for my RAID arrays(which would be silly to use).
 
If you think increased STR of 2 drives in RAID0 are going to provide the most benefit for gaming good luck to you. Get the Raptor and ignore the other nonsense. Here are some links to some real world testing I did a little while ago:

http://www.wideopenwest.com/~vacationdave/aa.JPG
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~vacationdave/photoshop.JPG
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~vacationdave/obliv.JPG
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~vacationdave/boot.JPG

Maybe some others could share their testing results that differ from mine.
 
Last edited:
What about the cache size on the hard disk? Say if you use two hard disk with different cache sizes does that mean the array will use the lesser of the two? How exactly will the cache be utilised in a RAID array?
 
tuskenraider said:
If you think increased STR of 2 drives in RAID0 are going to provide the most benefit for gaming good luck to you. Get the Raptor and ignore the other nonsense. Here are some links to some real world testing I did a little while ago:

http://www.wideopenwest.com/~vacationdave/aa.JPG

The main advantage of common RAID over the Raptors. Is the cost per gig. It is not going to give you the screaming spindle speeds going RAID. The cost of RAID at least offers some benifit. You just get value for the space and some speed benefit. Two 320 drives cost about the same as a 74gig Raptor.

I myself use a newer Raptor.
 
Enablingwolf said:
The main advantage of common RAID over the Raptors. Is the cost per gig. It is not going to give you the screaming spindle speeds going RAID. The cost of RAID at least offers some benifit. You just get value for the space and some speed benefit. Two 320 drives cost about the same as a 74gig Raptor.

I myself use a newer Raptor.
I think that goes without saying. He's asking about a benefit for gaming and so if he wants the best solution, the superior seek times of the Raptor will win out over the STR of RAID0 IMO.
 
Back