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

[NEEDS UPDATING SEE MY POST ON PAGE 2 -- David]**Raptors: Game Load-Up Results!**

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

Vio1

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Location
Toronto Canada
[NEEDS UPDATING SEE MY POST ON PAGE 2 -- David]**Raptors: Game Load-Up Results!**

Hello,
I took it upon myself to once and for all figure out if changing the stripe size in raid-0 would change the real-world load-up of games. So for all the people wondering what stripe size to set: LOOK NO FUTHER.

I also decided to see how one drive (1x36gb and 1x74GB) stacks up against raid-0...


Here is the background info:

Games used:
1)UT2004
2)Ground Control 2
3)Lock On
4)Far Cry
5)Unreal 2

Benchmark Utilities used:
1)Sisoftware Sandra
2)PCMark04
3)PCMark 2002
4)HD Tach 2.70

System used:
As discribed in my sig except for the cpu speed (i have it oc to 3.22ghz because its summer here and too hot outside to oc to 3.6ghz)

Procedure used:
I installed a fresh copy of windows Xp pro onto my raid-0 raptors and installed all the critical patches for windows. I installed the newest drivers for all my system components. I then installed all the games and benchmark utilities mentioned above. I then defraged my HDD and used Norton Ghost 2003 to make an image of the drive and copied that to a separate HDD.

I then proceeded to time the load up for the games and programs listed above (restarting the computer between each game/program).

When that was done I restarted the computer and deleted the raid setup and created a new one with the next stripe size up... then copied the image created in Norton Ghost over to the clean HDD and restarted the whole process of timing.

I did this over and over until I tested all the stripe sizes available to me, and then I tried a single HDD.

Update: The first and last tests (16k and single 74GB respectively) were not tested using Norton Ghost, but instead were tested on freshly installed windows XP and freshly installed games/apps.

What did I time exactly?
UT2004 - I timed the load up of the largest map size (DM-1on1-Desolation)
Ground Control 2 - I timed the load up of the tutorial 1 after the video
Lock On - I timed the load up of the F-15C Instant flight
Far Cry- I timed the load up of the first level after the video
Unreal 2- I timed the load up of the first level after the video

Sisoftware Sandra - I timed how long it took the HDD to complete the File System Benchmark
PCMark04 - I timed the HDD test suite
PCMark 2002- I timed the HDD test

Please keep in note: I used a hand-held stop-watch to do these timings... therefore there is a slight margin of error...

AND NOW................. THE RESULTS!
 
Last edited:
OP
V

Vio1

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Location
Toronto Canada
16k Stipe size

UT2004......................12.07s
GC 2..........................11.31s
Lock On.....................30.26s
Far Cry....................1.34.96s
Unreal 2.....................16.92s

Sisoftware Sandra.......49s
PCMark04...............3.30.74s
PCMark 2002..............23s

HD Tach 2.70............8.7ms seek time
max 119.5mb/s
min 63.9mb/s
avg 96.7mb/s

32k Stipe size

UT2004......................13.83s
GC 2..........................11.78s
Lock On.....................26.82s
Far Cry....................1.29.36s
Unreal 2.....................16.46s

Sisoftware Sandra.......45.68s
PCMark04...............3.30.85s
PCMark 2002..............21.27s

HD Tach 2.70............8.8ms seek time
max 119.4mb/s
min 28.5mb/s
avg 59.3mb/s

64k Stipe size

UT2004......................12.12s
GC 2..........................11.81s
Lock On.....................25.96s
Far Cry....................1.23.70s
Unreal 2.....................15.90s

Sisoftware Sandra.......47.17s
PCMark04...............3.42.25s
PCMark 2002..............20.78s

HD Tach 2.70............9.1ms seek time
max 99.9mb/s
min 32mb/s
avg 61.6mb/s

128k Stipe size

UT2004......................12.64s
GC 2..........................12.22s
Lock On.....................25.82s
Far Cry....................1.27.03s
Unreal 2.....................16.29s

Sisoftware Sandra.......46.72s
PCMark04...............3.42.91s
PCMark 2002..............24.92s

HD Tach 2.70............8.9ms seek time
max 91.6mb/s
min 41.4mb/s
avg 59.3mb/s

256k Stipe size

UT2004......................13.65s
GC 2..........................12.08s
Lock On.....................26.57s
Far Cry....................1.25.98s
Unreal 2.....................16.19s

Sisoftware Sandra.......54.88s
PCMark04...............3.33.15s
PCMark 2002..............25.03s

HD Tach 2.70............8.8ms seek time
max 87mb/s
min 34.9mb/s
avg 53.4mb/s

Single 36Gb Raptor

UT2004......................14.32s
GC 2..........................12.37s
Lock On.....................28.16s
Far Cry....................1.30.42s
Unreal 2.....................16.44s

Sisoftware Sandra.......1.21.39s
PCMark04..................3.55.34s
PCMark 2002..............35s

HD Tach 2.70............8.5ms seek time
max 60mb/s
min 36.4mb/s
avg 50.1mb/s



UPDATED RESULTS:



Single 74Gb Raptor

UT2004......................11.56s
GC 2..........................10.82s
Lock On.....................29.10s
Far Cry......................59.12s
Unreal 2.....................15.11s

Sisoftware Sandra.......1.12.91s
PCMark04..................3.56.73s
PCMark 2002..............34s

HD Tach 2.70............7.6ms seek time
max 73.4mb/s
min 38.1mb/s
avg 65.3mb/s
 
Last edited:

LtBlue14

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2003
omg, i clicked before you made the second post, and was like WHAT ARE THE RESULTS???

wow, sure doesn't make much of a difference does it? 64kb stripe size also seems to be the best/most well-rounded, i think. RAID doesn't make the 50% improvement that people probably hope for with it
 
OP
V

Vio1

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Location
Toronto Canada
Conclusion:

I noticed no change in load up times across the board in the games ( except for Far Cry). Stipe size made no real difference in how long it took to load the levels.
As to how Raid-0 stacks up against a single raptor... the only difference is in the benchmark scores... other then that.... in real world use... there is NO REAL IMPROVEMENT in load up times.
 

Randyman...

Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Looks like you got an average of 2 seconds slower (about a 15% increase in time) from a RAID0 RAP to a Single RAP on the UT2004. Does NOT look like $150 worth of improvement, does it?

People using RAID0 for DVD transfers to different disks, and like others mentioned - transferring LOTS of data from drive to drive - seems to benefit more than these tests would indicate. I still don't need it. My single RAP is plenty fast for me, and MORE reliable than a RAP RAID0!

That was a LOT of work - We appriciate your difinitive results! :cool:
 

attack

Member
Joined
May 23, 2002
Awesome, very informative! Thanks for taking the time to do this and posting the results in an organized fashion.

Good to know I only need to buy one 74gb raptor when I upgrade :)
 

Shuzzy

Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Location
Canada
well if your gonna do that you might as well just buy 2 36 raps, and put em in raid 0. take all the little performance benefit you can for your money. ;)
 
OP
V

Vio1

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Location
Toronto Canada
I think 1 74GB raptor would make more sense cause I noticed the improvement in the access time drop (when I switched from raid-0)... windows seems zipper... and the 74GB raptor has an even better access time!
 

Randyman...

Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Maybe this will be different once the "Native SATA" drives are readily avalible and affordable. Correct me if I am wrong (I have been wrong lots lately!), but isn't the Raptor still using ATA133 with an on-board SATA converter?

I just could NOT resist the urge to use the RAID capability of my MoBo. It was short lived for me, too!

I still think the $111 was worth having a DEDICATED 36Gig OS drive that SCREAMS like crazy! Makes B/U OS imaging a peice of cake, too! :cool:
 
OP
V

Vio1

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Location
Toronto Canada
The only thing Raid-0 is good for is a higher benchmark result and applications that require higher bandwidth. No real world actual performance was evident for games.
 

Docta_Z

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Location
Canada
Vio1 said:
there is NO REAL IMPROVEMENT in load up times.


This is also proven on anandtech, but it's nice to see more proof for it.

Good, I never thought raid 0 was that effective anyhow.

Great work.
 

a c i d.f l y

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Location
Austin, TX, USA
I love how everybody disses on RAID 0 like there is no performance gain. Every motherboard RAID controller runs through software drivers -- thus making performance gain merely a drift of the imagination -- limited to CPU.

Stick an Adaptec hardware RAID controller on there -- then test your results. (Granted, not many of us want to spend $299 + cost of a mobo with a 64bit pci slot).

ROMB (RAID on the Motherboard) is stupid unless it is being controlled with hardware -- not the OS -- with the exception of RAID 1, because there's no performance improvement regardless of what is controlling it.

-Frank
 

Drec

Member
Joined
May 23, 2004
Vio1...im sure it must have taken atleast a few hours to do all this..and we all thank you, im sure this will effect many peoples purchasing decisions.

*gives Vio1 a pat on the back* :clap:
yeah you should get this to be an artical on oc.com :)
 

gustav

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Location
Folding in Illinois
Vio1 said:
How do you make it a front page article?

Email Ed or Joe

Drec said:
Vio1...im sure it must have taken atleast a few hours to do all this..and we all thank you, im sure this will effect many peoples purchasing decisions.

*gives Vio1 a pat on the back* :clap:
yeah you should get this to be an artical on oc.com :)

hmmm, this should be an article on oc.com? :p
 
Last edited: