MSI GT75 + 2*970 pr0's in RAID setup, good idea?

LaCuNa

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
110
I currently have 1 NVME card installed in my rig, it's the PM961. After comparing the numbers between it, and the 970 pro, I can only fathom running 2 970 pro's in RAID.

However this will be the first time I have a raid setup. Do you think there's anything better than what I proposed above(performance wise)?

Thanks, V
 

LaCuNa

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
110
It's mostly a question about performance of(all things being equal), the latest SSD's that are available, latest firmware and performance, etc... I ask because I know sometimes any tiny little deal, can sway the overall benefit of one product over another, and I haven't been as informed on the latest tech as I used to be(want to though! Hopefully a 7980XE & 299x & Optane for Christmas!!! <3 ). Even after all my research, I just want to be sure of compatibility N' all.

Thanks, Good day! :cool:
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
981
Unless you're in need of a high-bandwidth scratch volume, running two SSDs in RAID0 is a silly idea. Doing so for the system volume is just stupid. All you'll get for your trouble is a more complex setup, benchmark e-peen, no real-world gain, double the chance of a drive failure taking out your system, and a much lighter wallet.

Swear to $DEITY, I link this so often I should put it in my .sig: NVMe SSDs provide no real-world gain over SATA units. Given that the jump in bandwidth from a SATA to NVMe SSD (as much as ~2-3 GB/s R/W) means so little, there's virtually no chance that another theoretical doubling would make any appreciable difference. In fact, the RAID layer could potentially slow down some functions (e.g., read/write access times, where SSDs really shine relative to HDDs and why the jump to the former from the latter is such a big performance increase).

If you need more space, get a single larger SSD, SATA unless you're using one of the edge case apps that actually might benefit from NVMe (i.e., not gaming, browsing, or office apps).
 

LaCuNa

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
110
My whole life, I've never had any drive fail, regardless of interface/standard. So, RAID chance of failure is practically nil. There are real world gains, you either never seen facts, or you are posing. NVME, is faster than standard SATA units, the end.
 

mwroobel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
5,019
My whole life, I've never had any drive fail, regardless of interface/standard. So, RAID chance of failure is practically nil. There are real world gains, you either never seen facts, or you are posing. NVME, is faster than standard SATA units, the end.
Wow. Just wow. I don’’t even know where to start. I would take the time to point out just how wrong you are, but I fear it would do nothing but feed the trolls (Except yes, NVME is faster than SATA, that is correct.)
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
981
My whole life, I've never had any drive fail, regardless of interface/standard. So, RAID chance of failure is practically nil. There are real world gains, you either never seen facts, or you are posing. NVME, is faster than standard SATA units, the end.


Hey, you asked in the thread title if your idea was a good one. I outlined why it's not and provided a link to numbers from an experienced and trusted reviewer that back up my position. No need to get all pissy and defensive about it.

Go back over past threads is this subforum, General Hardware, etc. where people ask about SSD storage. You'll find many posters offer the same basic advice, usually based on first hand experience (and sometimes disappointment) with NVMe upgrades.

So you've never had a drive failure. Congratulations, you're lucky. But as they say in those commercials for brokerages and such, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Believing that your drives won't die simply because you've not had one die previously is incredibly naive. I hope you're keeping good backups.
 

LaCuNa

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
110
Hey, you asked in the thread title if your idea was a good one. I outlined why it's not and provided a link to numbers from an experienced and trusted reviewer that back up my position. No need to get all pissy and defensive about it.

Go back over past threads is this subforum, General Hardware, etc. where people ask about SSD storage. You'll find many posters offer the same basic advice, usually based on first hand experience (and sometimes disappointment) with NVMe upgrades.

So you've never had a drive failure. Congratulations, you're lucky. But as they say in those commercials for brokerages and such, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Believing that your drives won't die simply because you've not had one die previously is incredibly naive. I hope you're keeping good backups.

I'm not being mean, I don't like it when people deter me from achieving *possible* maximum performance. I thank you for your contribution, though.

Actually I did have a drive fail once, but I think that was mostly a combination of A) cheap PSU, B) cheap HDD brand, C) Old, D) Dropped hard like 4 times -_- I was 15. It was an IDE.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
981
I'm not being mean, I don't like it when people deter me from achieving *possible* maximum performance.


Well, then it would seem you have two choices:
  1. Stop asking people to critique your ideas.
  2. Grow a thicker skin, realize that a refutation of your idea is not an attack on you, ask good questions, contribute your own thoughts/evidence.
Personally, I like option 2.

And yes, I was trying to deter you. Not from achieving "Maximum Performance", but from throwing money, time, and complexity at a setup that won't really get you any closer. Because for your storage subsystem you're essentially already there as it relates to real-world (not benchmark) usage.

There comes a point of diminishing returns. It's relatively easy to get to, say, 99% of what's possible. It's that last 1% that'll kill. You have to ask, is it worth doubling the cost of a build to eke out that final 1%? To shave a tenth of a second off the boot time or add a couple FPS? It's easy to throw away many hundreds of dollars at something that might, at best, only get you minimal gains.


Anybody use MSI Super Raid 4?


Looks to simply be their marketing gimmick for the software RAID and caching options already included in the Intel chipsets, with a pretty GUI on top. Nothing special.
https://service.msicomputer.com/msi_user/support/techfaqdetail.aspx?formid=3072
 

arestavo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,672
I have a MSI GT73VR Titan SLI with SuperRaid 3 (striped PM951 256GB drives, a SATA III 1TB SSd drive, and a Seagate Firecuda 2TB drive).

I have a desktop with a PCIE Intel 900 Optane drive, and have used a Samsung 950 Pro and SATA II and SATA III SSDs (in RAID 0 as well).

You want the fastest possible game loading times? Don't use a laptop with a laptop processor - get one with a full blown Intel desktop chip in a chassis that allows to some overclocking headroom. Single threaded performance can greatly impact game loading time.

As to the difference between striped (RAID 0) and a single SSD for games? The difference is the storage space available, and depending on the motherboard, the increased overhead that slows load times down even when showing amazeball read/write/IOPS numbers in RAID 0.

Now, with all that said there IS a difference between a meh SSD and a quality SSD that relates to performance. However, good quality SSDs can still choke when they are filled up - so having a larger capacity drive is preferable.

Take it or leave it. I've already spent the money and tested for myself from WD VelociRaptor 74GB drives to some of the first consumer 32GB SSDs in two and four drive RAID 0 all the way through to "king" Optane
 
Last edited:
Top