• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Another RAID 0 article

He used Sandra as a benchmark.
getoff.jpg


edit: and his email is @aol.com. :p
 
Okay, but seriously. He also claims:
- an increase of more than 100% for Photoshop loading times
- an increase of more than 100% for boot times
- 82% increase in speed with duplication of a "large" (1gb isn't large!) file versus only 45% increase with a 400 some MB file
- more than 100% increase in speed installing 3dmark

So how did the raptor benefit it more than 100%? Raid 0 fans, this thing has to be a disappointment - this guy's arguing in your direction but not getting believable results. This just doesn't add up.

 
I'm curious as to how they are getting, in some tests, more than a 100 percent increase in performance.
 
in other news, my Raptor 150GB is being delivered today :D :D
upgrading from one of the very first 74GB ones (00FLA0 firmware think), so I expect to see a nice boost in performance

should I sell off the 74GB or use it for my pagefile?
 
Might as well keep it really. I think putting pagefile on it would be grand!
 
defakto said:
I'm curious as to how they are getting, in some tests, more than a 100 percent increase in performance.
Click to expand...
Huh? Where'dya see that?
 
mikeblas said:
Huh? Where'dya see that?
Click to expand...


Just look at some of the numbers.

Photoshop load test on a single was like 16.86 seconds, on the raid 0 it was about 6.37. Which says to me either the tests weren't completly drive bound, aka bad benchmark on drive performance OR the data is flawed.
 
Page one of the review, the "Application loading" for Photoshop: 16.86 for a single drive, or 6.37 for two. That's 264% as much performance, assuming it's disk limited (which the results would seem to indicate. Or in the "installing 3dmark" test, where he gets 212% of the performance out of two disks. Or in the "loading windows" test, with 268%. He's making strange claims left and right, on tests run with a stopwatch. I find that a bit suspicious.

 
Oh, I see. I guess we use different words to describe performance. But I agree that having results more than twice as fast is odd.
 
If those results are "correct" there would have to be a BIOS or driver level issue on the test system that was artificially limiting the SLED results.
 
defakto said:
Might as well keep it really. I think putting pagefile on it would be grand!
Click to expand...

I would sell it unless you just dont need extra money. I dont think page file is an issue if you have enough RAM. Most of us today are upgradeing to 2 gigs so i wouldn't even worry about the page file.
 
I ran tests a couple years ago with both IDE and SCSI Raid arrays using a stopwatch. Here is some numbers just to compare to. My tests did not show that much of an improvement. However I did not do a large number of copy tests.


 
RAID has its uses but IMO RAID on the desktop for performance is just for bragging rights and has no real benefit. I have tested RAID setups with my friends and such, and games didn't really load any faster, or windows by much. I think games was like 2 or 3 seconds for most and windows booted 8 seconds faster.

Plus then you have 2x the chance of failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top