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

Raid 0 faster than udma?

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

hipster

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Location
Upstate, NewYork
I'll be doing general-family-pc + video work/encoding, already have backup thru lan, should I use Raid 0 or 1 or should I just use udma as I've always done? will probably just use normal ide-udma drives & will be messy around at times with ocing
 

goliathvt

Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Serial ATA (SATA) Raid (raid0) uses much thinner cables (I think they're like 4-wire or something) and is slightly faster than Parallel ATA (PATA) using a really good harddrive. PATA is what people have been using for years... with those big-ol' honkin' stiff, grey IDE cables. SATA is relatively new.

Goliath
 

Propilot

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Location
Houston, Texas
To answer your question.........

That is what I use my cpu for also.
I have never had any stability or corupt issues with my Raid 0 set up. It is faster than Ultra and XP thinks I hace a 60g hard drive instead of my two 30g.