Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lazn_Work said:Personal choice. One 150 is what I would go for, but you may want to try RAID 0..
For boot times, the additional wait for the RAID bios is likely to offset any gains in drive performance.
For game level loading times, it depends on the game, but usually RAID 0 is 3-4 seconds improvement.
For reliability, RAID 0 is more likely to have problems, though that may not be a factor for you.
So it really is up to you. If you are doing anything that gets large gains from a hight STR then RAID 0 would help, but with a total of 74GB.. it might not be worth it for that. (video editing, raw audio capture, database hosting etc)
don't confuse the WD360GD with the WD360ADFDcooter said:The difference will be very neglegable. the 150's are newer and faster as a single drive compared to the 36gigers
me tooButterFlyEffect78 said:I see alot of people are confused the way raid0 works.
From the impression that I have gathered over the past years, I would say that the confusion isn't over how R-0 works, since that is pretty simple, but rather about how particular implementations of R-0 works. The effect that R-0 has for "gaming" performance is also an issue over which there is much discussion.ButterFlyEffect78 said:I see alot of people are confused the way raid0 works.
Which leads to the next question: two 150's, or four 36's? Given the number of open SATA ports on newer boards, would a four-drive array offer any advantage?Sunin said:raid 0 2 150's
I know this was asked because of price comparison, but I'll reiterate that the ADFD 36GB drives offer just as much performance as the 150GB drive. But to answer your question, it would be two 150's since the seek times will start to diminish over two drives(losing "quickness" of the drives) and the benefit of increased STR's isn't gonna help your typical desktop and gaming usage. Also, I've noticed and timed the benefit of RAID0 on my system and like the performance increase.Which leads to the next question: two 150's, or four 36's?
The 4-disk array would certainly consume more power.Zamboni said:Which leads to the next question: two 150's, or four 36's? Given the number of open SATA ports on newer boards, would a four-drive array offer any advantage?
ButterFlyEffect78 said:I see alot of people are confused the way raid0 works. It does offer a slight speed up on things because it does in fact deliver up to 20% in read performance. The major improvement having raid 0 is bandwidth or throughput under certain circumstances such as transfering large files or copying between folder to folder. In fact, I own two raptors and I ran a test against my single data drive and my raid 0 config. was exactly 2x faster copying a same exact file. So, just think of raid0 something like dual core cpu, better multitasking, encoding, etc..... But it is very ignorant to say raid0 offers lil or no performance over a singel drive.
Anandtech said:If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.
AnywayConrad aka Vio1 in OC Forum said: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.
I think you are confusedButterFlyEffect78 said:I see alot of people are confused the way raid0 works.
I think you should reconsider this remarkButterFlyEffect78 said:But it is very ignorant to say raid0 offers lil or no performance over a singel drive.
and this oneEnderW said:me too
Well I'm sorry I get 15-20% on my PC. Is that enough of a differentiation to still call that "no improvement"? I think so and the rest can decide for themselves.If are are looking at game and application load times you will see that this trend does not continue, the performance difference will be from 0-10%.
I don't let you decide for me if it's "worth it" and neither should anyone else.So for real world performance increases it is not worth it but RAID0 may make your e-penis bigger.
Ditto.I wish i didn't have to keep posting this stuff.
tuskenraider said:Ditto.
este said:People who read random articles and then consider themselves experts without ever having used a raid0 setup should not be allowed to post here.
IntelOwnz said:...if RAID offered ANY performance increase at all...
drizzt81 said:See that is what some people are debating as well. According to that rogue post on SR, it may be that R-0 offers a performance decrease. In the end it comes down to whether people believe SR, Anandtech or the OCForums post. The bottom line is that I do not understand why people are so religious about it. Let the OP run his RAID-0, if he wants to. If he comes back in 4 weeks and asks us how to get his data back... tough luck.
As I stated before, all the new 16MB cache drives perform pretty much the same. Will 36's show quicker access time with less hardware to move? 150's show better STR's with more heads and platters? Too close to call it seems. I posted graphs in this thread at the bottom that are referenced from a sticky at PCPerspective forums.So if anyone has any results on the new 36, or better yet, the new 36 compared to a 150, please enlighten me.