• 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.

Quick Raptor Questions

D

Darkatom

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
1,185
Does having a 150GB Raptor in a gaming rig actually make a difference compared to a 320gb with 16mb cache? Is the difference noticable? For reference my system specs are 6700 (2.6) core 2 duo, 2 gigs of ram and 2 7900GTX.
 
it depends. A raptor will certainly not get you more FPS in any current generation game.
 
The only thing that will happen, is that you will get reduced level load times. Though the difference is slight I have always noticed it with my 74GB Raptors.
 
Dan_D said:
The only thing that will happen, is that you will get reduced level load times. Though the difference is slight I have always noticed it with my 74GB Raptors.
Click to expand...

yeah, i love my 150 Raptor, i noticed faster load times in games and OS, even some programs. I have all my programs,software,games,os on it. Accutally thinking of getting another 150 and put them in raid 0
 
-(Xyphox)- said:
yeah, i love my 150 Raptor, i noticed faster load times in games and OS, even some programs. I have all my programs,software,games,os on it. Accutally thinking of getting another 150 and put them in raid 0
Click to expand...

with your standing at 2[H]4U, i assume you already know the risks of raid0, so i wont even go into it
 
Risks? It's called backup mitigation. No critical data should ever be stored on a RAID0 set. That is all. If you wanna see BF2 maps load FAST and be the first one on the map runnin' around, try out RAID0 Rapotrs on a good controller. I'll never go back.

I'm sure I've just opened up a can of worms here.
 
AFAIK RAID 0 doesn't really help at all in games, and doesn't really affect load times. If there is a difference, it's negligible.

I've never tried it and tested it myself though.
 
ChingChang said:
AFAIK RAID 0 doesn't really help at all in games, and doesn't really affect load times. If there is a difference, it's negligible.

I've never tried it and tested it myself though.
Click to expand...

It does make a difference, and its NOT negligible.....
 
Can we please stop beating the dead RAID-0 and games horse? Unless someone has some new information (say verifiable benchmarks) on this, I don't think we will change anyone's mind.
 
Crosshairs said:
It does make a difference, and its NOT negligible.....
Click to expand...
got anything to back this up?

Here's some links supporting my statement:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952998 (What RAID can and can't do)
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1001325 (RAID 0 proved ineffective)
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=11 (RAID 0 benchmarks)
more on storagereview and other sites...


drizzt81 said:
Can we please stop beating the dead RAID-0 and games horse? Unless someone has some new information (say verifiable benchmarks) on this, I don't think we will change anyone's mind.
Click to expand...
of course not ;)
 
Darkatom said:
Does having a 150GB Raptor in a gaming rig actually make a difference compared to a 320gb with 16mb cache? Is the difference noticable? For reference my system specs are 6700 (2.6) core 2 duo, 2 gigs of ram and 2 7900GTX.
Click to expand...

Your best off going with the 320 instead. May not be quite as fast, but twice the storage at almost half the cost.

I've used and experienced raptors, and I did not notice a world of a difference.

These RAID 0 arguements get started because someone makes a comment as soon as anyone talks about doing a RAID 0, as if the person doing it didn't know what they were doing and didn't know the risks. Yes, there are risks of RAID 0, and moreso than using standalone drives. But we're talking about a .000001 percent change of failure compared to a .00001 percent change.
 
Rocco123 said:
These RAID 0 arguements get started because someone makes a comment as soon as anyone talks about doing a RAID 0, as if the person doing it didn't know what they were doing and didn't know the risks. Yes, there are risks of RAID 0, and moreso than using standalone drives. But we're talking about a .000001 percent change of failure compared to a .00001 percent change.
Click to expand...

The problem is that many, if not most, people that use raid 0 DON'T understand the risks.

As brahmzy said, no important information should every be kept without a backup (whether on a raid 0 array or not).

The chances of a disk failure are waaaaay higher than you think they are.
 
ChingChang said:
AFAIK RAID 0 doesn't really help at all in games, and doesn't really affect load times. If there is a difference, it's negligible.

I've never tried it and tested it myself though.
Click to expand...

Ya know what? This is EXACTLY why RAID0 gets a bad rap. People spouting BS that have NEVER EVEN TRIED IT!!!!!!!! ARGH!

Anybody who has RAID0 Raptors and plays BF2 KNOWS they will be one of the first if not the first on the map. Period. I've been playing all morning and out of about 8 maps loaded I was the first person on the map about half of those times.

Levels DO load faster...a LOT faster. Good grief people, c'mon!
 
Brahmzy said:
Ya know what? This is EXACTLY why RAID0 gets a bad rap. People spouting BS that have NEVER EVEN TRIED IT!!!!!!!! ARGH!

Anybody who has RAID0 Raptors and plays BF2 KNOWS they will be one of the first if not the first on the map. Period. I've been playing all morning and out of about 8 maps loaded I was the first person on the map about half of those times.

Levels DO load faster...a LOT faster. Good grief people, c'mon!
Click to expand...

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2760&p=10

Yep, two 7200.10 drives in RAID 0 is faster than a single Raptor 150.

In BF2: 1.01 min where a single drive is 1.08, that is 4.2 seconds faster. (quite a bit of time in FPS land)

So if it is worth it to to have twice the cost, twice the power draw, and twice the chance of data loss to have your map load 4.2 seconds faster, go for it.

A Single Raptor takes 1.03 min, so 1.2 seconds slower than the RAID 0 7200.10's.
 
I can see RAID 0 implemented well with the new intellex Matrix RAID where you can have a backup copy of the OS partition of the mirrored drive...
that way you have the best of both worlds.

so say you have a 320 gig drive (300 Gb real)
you only need 100 or so to be in raid 0, and the other 200 to be in raid 1
 
Brahmzy said:
Ya know what? This is EXACTLY why RAID0 gets a bad rap. People spouting BS that have NEVER EVEN TRIED IT!!!!!!!! ARGH!

Anybody who has RAID0 Raptors and plays BF2 KNOWS they will be one of the first if not the first on the map. Period. I've been playing all morning and out of about 8 maps loaded I was the first person on the map about half of those times.

Levels DO load faster...a LOT faster. Good grief people, c'mon!
Click to expand...
Well, that's why I rely on benchmarks and reviews to base my statements. If I've never used a high end Athlon64 and I say it will perform better than a high end Pentium 4 in games, would that be BS too?

If I don't have the money or the time to test something, then should I just not even bother reading reviews because I'll just be reading BS?

;)
but I did say "As Far As I Know", and I said I've never tried it so that does show I'm not giving a definate answer and I could be wrong. But all the reviews I see show that RAID 0 only provides negligible gains if any.


BTW, I have a 74gb Raptor. And when I used to play BF2, I'd be the first guy in the map, or one of the first. Same with any other game. MAYBE, it's just because you have a Raptor that you're getting into the game first? How do you KNOW that it's because of RAID 0? There could also be a lot of other variables, like what if everyone else is running on a shitty computer that is 4 years old?? (probably never the case, but it's still possible your hardware is a lot better than your oponents) And even if they do have high end hardware, they could have software issues, virus or spyware.
 
TMan1876 said:
The problem is that many, if not most, people that use raid 0 DON'T understand the risks.

As brahmzy said, no important information should every be kept without a backup (whether on a raid 0 array or not).

The chances of a disk failure are waaaaay higher than you think they are.
Click to expand...

As much as I can argue with all of these statements, wrong thread. I will stop it at that.

OP - Get the 320. Much more bang for the buck.
 
Rocco123 said:
As much as I can argue with all of these statements, wrong thread. I will stop it at that.

OP - Get the 320. Much more bang for the buck.
Click to expand...

You can argue that important information doesn't need to be backed up?
 
Lazn_Work said:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2760&p=10

Yep, two 7200.10 drives in RAID 0 is faster than a single Raptor 150.

In BF2: 1.01 min where a single drive is 1.08, that is 4.2 seconds faster. (quite a bit of time in FPS land)

So if it is worth it to to have twice the cost, twice the power draw, and twice the chance of data loss to have your map load 4.2 seconds faster, go for it.

A Single Raptor takes 1.03 min, so 1.2 seconds slower than the RAID 0 7200.10's.
Click to expand...
well, as long as you don't play oblivion, where the single raptor is 30% faster than the Seagate RAID-0 array....
 
TMan1876 said:
You can argue that important information doesn't need to be backed up?
Click to expand...

I can argue that we need to remind people to backup EVERYTIME someone so much as mentions RAID 0. I can argue that most people in these forums know that much.

I can argue that I underestimate the chances of HD failures, in standalone or RAID 0 config. I support 1500 servers with more drives than you can count. I'm well aware of the frequency of HD failures, and I know it doesn't happen that frequently.

I can argue that you think most people that use RAID 0 aren't aware of the risks and need to be given 1000 reasons not to use it.

clear enough?
 
Rocco123 said:
I can argue that we need to remind people to backup EVERYTIME someone so much as mentions RAID 0. I can argue that most people in these forums know that much.

I can argue that I underestimate the chances of HD failures, in standalone or RAID 0 config. I support 1500 servers with more drives than you can count. I'm well aware of the frequency of HD failures, and I know it doesn't happen that frequently.

I can argue that you think most people that use RAID 0 aren't aware of the risks and need to be given 1000 reasons not to use it.

clear enough?
Click to expand...

I would agree that in a server farm, drives die infrequently. Over the last 6 years I have probably replaced 10 drives in my 6 servers, and they are on 24/7.. but these are SCSI enterprise drives in servers.

In my desktops that I support, I have replaced many more drives, and in my experience with using RAID 0 personally, and friends using RAID 0, the chance of drive failure, controller failure, cable failure leading to corruption, power supply failure, and general some other way of data getting damaged, the chanse is much higher than with server.

And when it comes to recovering data from a broken RAID 0 array, even if the drives still function, the problems become much more difficult than if it was a single drive. (many utilites will not even touch the array)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top