2x240GB SSD in Raid 0 = Gaming performance?

M

MapleSyrupMods

Bring on Titan X Volta
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,224
Just finishing up my new rig and am contemplating the idea of running two 240GB Samsung 850 Evo SSD in Raid 0. The only thing I plan to install on these drives is the main game as well as OS. All other stuff if on a backup drive. Would I notice any performance increase by running two SSD in Raid 0 vs just one SSD? Asking because SSD are already quite fast, so not sure if I'd notice the same as with a 7200rpm disk drive.
 
I'm very curious about this too. I know back in the day when I first played around with RAID 0 the performance was very noticeable. My 7200 IDE drive took almost exactly 2 minutes to load a map in BF2. Going to two 2nd gen Raptors cut that time down to 1 minute. When I upgraded to 4 Raptors in RAID 0 that time was cut in half down to around 30 seconds. It was pretty obvious who running RAID setups back then because you could spawn and snatch whatever vehicle you wanted before everyone else joined. Most of the reviews I read say there is no "real world" benefit of using RAID 0 so I'm confused myself.
 
RAID0 would help immensely if games were a 8GB file that was read sequentially in one load. In this case it would take around 16 seconds to load that 8GB file with a single SSD but 8 to load with 2 SSDs in raid0. However most games do not read in large sequential chunks like this and that since raiding SSDs do not generally help with small chunks you do not gain much if anything.
 
Always depends on usage. RAID0 absolutely has benefits, depending on usage and I/O profiles.

A quick test to any naysayer. Run a single SSD, go to Windows Update on a fresh OS install and time how long it takes before you're prompted to reboot. Do the same exact thing with RAID0.
Be amazed. In most usages there are random r/w times and sequential r/w times. There's next to no penalty (a tiny latency hit) in R0 for the randoms yet almost double the performance during the sequentials.

To make blanket statements that RAID0 offers no benefit is ignorant at best. Depends on usage and I/O profiles.
 
Faster overall, yes for sure practically twice the speed in some cases.

Noticeable while gaming? You might shave a few seconds overall, but I didn't find it worth the hassle and just went back to single drives for my games.
 
The bottleneck is rarely on storage once you've properly installed a quality SSD. You can load the game from a RAM drive that's 50x faster and the improvement will be marginal. Look here to see a 6 year old SATA II drive load games just as fast as the hottest SSDs available.
 
^ Also interesting from those graphs is the how bad the Intel 750 does (which is technically better than raid0 of 2 SSDs - about 4 times the large sequential read performance of a single SSD). That is in a few of the benchmarks.
 
Last edited:
ochadd said:
The bottleneck is rarely on storage once you've properly installed a quality SSD. You can load the game from a RAM drive that's 50x faster and the improvement will be marginal. Look here to see a 6 year old SATA II drive load games just as fast as the hottest SSDs available.
Click to expand...

I just ran those same game benchmarks on my RAID array and got almost identical times in batman and TR. Guess that answers my question in another tread lol.
 
Yakk said:
Faster overall, yes for sure practically twice the speed in some cases.

Noticeable while gaming? You might shave a few seconds overall, but I didn't find it worth the hassle and just went back to single drives for my games.
Click to expand...
This. Most games on my 850 Pro only take 5-20 seconds to load, depending on the game. In the best-case scenario things would be loading 10 seconds faster in RAID0. Is that worth doubling the cost?

I would say take the money you would spend on two EVOs and buy one 512GB 850 Pro instead. The EVOs are still using MLC to cut cost, so you'll get better longevity and performance from a Pro.
 
drescherjm said:
RAID0 would help immensely if games were a 8GB file that was read sequentially in one load. In this case it would take around 16 seconds to load that 8GB file with a single SSD but 8 to load with 2 SSDs in raid0. However most games do not read in large sequential chunks like this and that since raiding SSDs do not generally help with small chunks you do not gain much if anything.
Click to expand...

Exactly, there is really no reason to do this.
Also, the loss of TRIM in RAID0 will also start to affect performance down the road.

OP, you would be better off getting a single, large-capacity, high quality SSD over two smaller ones.
 
Thanks for the replies. I think I will go with the larger drive then – I am looking at the Intel 730 series 480 GB drive. Is this a faster/more reliable option then the Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB?
 
Cell said:
Thanks for the replies. I think I will go with the larger drive then – I am looking at the Intel 730 series 480 GB drive. Is this a faster/more reliable option then the Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB?
Click to expand...

Yes, by quite a bit.
If I were in your shoes, that's exactly what I would do.
 
I wrote a short thread on this a couple years back.

The net "gain" really only exists in sequential operations.

Red Falcon said:
Also, the loss of TRIM in RAID0 will also start to affect performance down the road.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that's correct in all cases. I do believe Intel chipsets 7 series and forward support TRIM in RAID just fine. I'll have to check my machine later and see if TRIM is operational.
 
cortexodus said:
I don't believe that's correct in all cases. I do believe Intel chipsets 7 series and forward support TRIM in RAID just fine. I'll have to check my machine later and see if TRIM is operational.
Click to expand...

You might be right on that.
I did hear they were making improvements on it a while ago, but never checked up on it.

If you do find out, could you please report back to us to let us know? :)
 
Regular use - raid 0 really won't be noticeable BUT for me personally, the raid 0 benefit comes in for newer games with large load screens / transitions. You will really notice how quick a multiple raid 0 drive setup is vs a single drive. I've had 2, 3 and 4 raid 0 and going from 1 to 2 is the biggest difference. 2 to 3 and 3 to 4 not so much even though benchmarks might say otherwise. Take a look at the games you play - for me it was Dragon Age Inquisition - and watch the transitions / load screens. Yes, there is a difference.
 
Seeing how I don't want to make another thread, I need to decide whether or not I go with the Samsung 850 Evo 500GB or the Intel 730 480GB. I've read the intel has better longevity build quality, but speed differences isn't that much. Does the higher price warrant getting the Intel over the Samsung?
 
Cell said:
Seeing how I don't want to make another thread, I need to decide whether or not I go with the Samsung 850 Evo 500GB or the Intel 730 480GB. I've read the intel has better longevity build quality, but speed differences isn't that much. Does the higher price warrant getting the Intel over the Samsung?
Click to expand...

I personally would consider the Intel 730.
The Samsung Evo is good, but I've heard quite a few issues with older data becoming slower over time.
 
I would (Did) personal go for a 128-256GB OS drive and then a second 500GB SSD for games. That way windows is not eating into your games performance and if you need to wipe your windows install you don't need to worry about steam ect.
 
Cell said:
Seeing how I don't want to make another thread, I need to decide whether or not I go with the Samsung 850 Evo 500GB or the Intel 730 480GB. I've read the intel has better longevity build quality, but speed differences isn't that much. Does the higher price warrant getting the Intel over the Samsung?
Click to expand...

Speed difference here would be pretty much a non-issue. I'd suggest the Intel just based on it being MLC NAND vs TLC in the Samsung. Practical difference between the two is probably negligible at best. Just my opinion tho. :)

Also, just a note that the Crucial 960GB is under $300 at the moment if you wanted higher capacity at lower $ per GB
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
drescherjm said:
RAID0 would help immensely if games were a 8GB file that was read sequentially in one load. In this case it would take around 16 seconds to load that 8GB file with a single SSD but 8 to load with 2 SSDs in raid0. However most games do not read in large sequential chunks like this and that since raiding SSDs do not generally help with small chunks you do not gain much if anything.
Click to expand...

This +

As well, you also run this risk of your boards onboard controller "tripping" momentarily on the array and dropping (failing) a disk out. Once this happens, RAID 0 has no redundancy, so you just lost everything.

Rebuild the array, and copy everything back on to it.

If you go RAID0 anyways, make continual backups of your game files to another drive. So when the array does bite it, you can recovery (relatively) quickly.
 
Brahmzy said:
Always depends on usage. RAID0 absolutely has benefits, depending on usage and I/O profiles.

A quick test to any naysayer. Run a single SSD, go to Windows Update on a fresh OS install and time how long it takes before you're prompted to reboot. Do the same exact thing with RAID0.
Be amazed. In most usages there are random r/w times and sequential r/w times. There's next to no penalty (a tiny latency hit) in R0 for the randoms yet almost double the performance during the sequentials.

To make blanket statements that RAID0 offers no benefit is ignorant at best. Depends on usage and I/O profiles.
Click to expand...

Most people don't sit around watching Windows Update though. I know I don't. I don't care how long it takes to restart, because I'm going to postpone it until when restarting is convenient. Also, this thread specifically asks about gaming performance.

Yes, there are usage scenarios that benefit from RAID 0 SSDs. Those are niche scenarios though. Most users will never notice a difference between RAID 0 and not RAID 0 SSDs in normal day to day usage.
 
Cell said:
Just finishing up my new rig and am contemplating the idea of running two 240GB Samsung 850 Evo SSD in Raid 0. The only thing I plan to install on these drives is the main game as well as OS. All other stuff if on a backup drive. Would I notice any performance increase by running two SSD in Raid 0 vs just one SSD? Asking because SSD are already quite fast, so not sure if I'd notice the same as with a 7200rpm disk drive.
Click to expand...

The difference in performance would probably be minor. It may knock off a couple seconds on load times, but chances are its not going to be all that noticeable. Going from a single SSD to 2 in raid 0 isn't going to as very drastic like it was going from an HDD to an SSD.
 
Having been hit by the Samsung 840EVO "senility" bug I'd avoid Samsung. I haven't seen that the 850 has issues but why take the chance?
 
Following this logic you cannot buy Intel, Samsung, Crucial and OCZ. All of these had problems with SSDs, some were rather devastating (Intel 8MB bug, Crucial m400 bricks, several types of OCZ drives).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top