RAID 0 beats Raptor 150

Please don't troll. We've been through this argument a million times (at least).
 
Guess doing that 2x250GB RAID I was thinking about the other day is now looking like an even better proposition over the 74GB Raptor I had lined up. Interesting...

Now if only THG would let people PRINT the damned articles instead of giving it up in byte-size morsels... ugh. :D 11 pages for something that could have been done in 4 or less. Geez...

Even so, I think I'll go with the Raptor. A quick and very responsive system is far more useful to me than read/write ratings for big transfers. RAID, even with those drives, simply can't match that 8ms average access time - the 13 and 13.5ms access times are just sloooowwwwww by comparison. ~55% speed hit across the board on each transaction adds up, even if it is an average rating.

Raptor ftw!!! :)
 
No game tests, useless benchmark. Everybody knew transfer rates where higher with raid 0, the question is what about game performance.
 
Heck even in that poorly written article go look at the actual performance benchmarks.. In most everything but raw throughput and synthetic numbers the Single raptor beat the RAID 0 400gb drives.

Startup performance boot time iometer etc. (pages 8, 9 &10)
 
StorageReview's reviewing and benchmarking is much more thorough, and really what I consider to be the authority on harddrive performance. At least they just don't do throughput benchmarks.

Of course RAW throughput is going to be higher, duh, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. This completely analogous to people saying "Higher Clockspeed = better Proccessor" or "Watts = Better PSU", it just isn't that simple, There are so many dimensions that go in to hard drive performance in real world applications most of which don't involve transferring very large files, unless your gonna be doing lots of photo shop or other media editing/encoding.

This is flamebait.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Even so, I think I'll go with the Raptor. A quick and very responsive system is far more useful to me than read/write ratings for big transfers. RAID, even with those drives, simply can't match that 8ms average access time - the 13 and 13.5ms access times are just sloooowwwwww by comparison. ~55% speed hit across the board on each transaction adds up, even if it is an average rating.

Raptor ftw!!! :)
Click to expand...

I agree. I'll be upgrading my original 36GB to a 74 or 150 very soon. The only thing I would use RAID0 for is video/picture editing or swap/page files. The transfer rates are great for large images and videos.
 
How many times have we gone over the fact that RAID0 has very limited usefulness for the single user unless said user is a video editor or something? Games get very little, if any benefit from RAID0, but you will see a definite improvement with a Raptor...
 
Sovereign said:
How many times have we gone over the fact that RAID0 has very limited usefulness for the single user unless said user is a video editor or something?
Click to expand...

Until we beat that darn dead horse completely dead... :(
 
annaconda said:
Link
Click to expand...

With all due respect, get out and take your article with you. They're not testing anything relevant. They're using two different setups for two parts of the testing. To sum up my opinion of this "review" you need read only one line (page 11):
the RAID 0 array beats it in most benchmarks except access time and I/O performance
Click to expand...
And there you have it. The only "benchmark" which wasn't directly testing STR or access times in ms showed only 7% change between the slowest and fastest setups. The editing in the article is terrible, too:
While [the Raptor']s maximum sequential read performance is no longer unmatched, the minimum transfer speed remains far superior to that of any 7,200 RPM drive. On the other hand,
Click to expand...
On the other hand from what? Is the next thing you expect criticism or praise of the Raptor? What does "minimum transfer speed" mean? Sequential or random?

I don't pay any attention to THG, and starting now I plan to do the same to this thread. Old ground, been fought over many, many times, and there's no new data here. Sequential transfer rates go up, seek times appear to stay the same in benchmarks (but actually go up!), and in the real world... who knows.
 
I'm just amazed by the perpetual worthless "articles" that site puts out and somehow maintains sponsors and readership. Even when Storagereview did their RAID0 comparisons they didn't even have enough sense to use the same version drives for single vs. RAID0 comparisons. Apparantly you don't have to be too bright to run a "successfull" site.
 
I wish someone would just do one set of benchmarks. I want to know if RAID 0 loads Cerbere Landing in Battlefield 2142 (insert level in favorite game) faster then a non RAID setup of the same drive and also vs the Raptor.

When I ran RAID 0 back in the day it was on a pair of 7.2k 20GB hard disks and there was one hell of a decrease in game level loading with them (SOF2 was the game of choice for me then) once I got the right stripe size figured out. This is where I think alot of people screw up setting up a RAID 0, they don't try all the stripe sizes and test and see which one is better. After losing that stripe due to my motherboard crapping out on me, I sure wouldn't put anything other then games on it. Losing your data sucks big time and I was thankful it was nothing important on there. But this was all back in the day when drives were ALOT slower then they are today and for sure were the bottleneck.

Anyways, I don't give a shit about theoretical shit, I just want to know if a pair of 7.2k drives in RAID will load up my games faster.

Oh, and my little rant. Hard drives don't help your frickin' frames per second. My god, I am so sick of hearing somone say shit like "RAID 0 doesn't do anything for gaming FPS." Well no shit it doesn't, but I tell ya what, it sure is nice to get in the level 5 seconds earlier and be halfway to the flag in CTF before anyone else gets in. "Free Points!" Now will RAID 0 give me those 5 seconds is the question I would like answered.
 
protias said:
Please don't troll. We've been through this argument a million times (at least).
Click to expand...
Annaconda generally posts article link in this way. It was surely not meant at a trolling attempt.
bbz_Ghost said:
Now if only THG would let people PRINT the damned articles instead of giving it up in byte-size morsels... ugh. :D 11 pages for something that could have been done in 4 or less. Geez...
Click to expand...
But 11 page impressions -> more ads -> more money ;)

tuskenraider said:
I'm just amazed by the perpetual worthless "articles" that site puts out and somehow maintains sponsors and readership. Even when Storagereview did their RAID0 comparisons they didn't even have enough sense to use the same version drives for single vs. RAID0 comparisons. Apparantly you don't have to be too bright to run a "successfull" site.
Click to expand...
Wow... Tom: if the local RAID-0 enthusiast burns you for your article, you have seriously screwed up. - nothing personal Tusken.
 
Met-AL said:
I wish someone would just do one set of benchmarks. I want to know if RAID 0 loads Cerbere Landing in Battlefield 2142 (insert level in favorite game) faster then a non RAID setup of the same drive and also vs the Raptor.
Click to expand...


To make it fair, if your comparing performance you should compare the RAID0 setup, to a drive of equivalent cost to the RAID0 Setup, and also if you raiding two 80GB drives you should compare them to a single 160GB drive (same family and hardware, preferably). Comparing two drives in RAID0 to the same drive alone is just inherently unfair.
 
devman said:
To make it fair, if your comparing performance you should compare the RAID0 setup, to a drive of equivalent cost to the RAID0 Setup, and also if you raiding two 80GB drives you should compare them to a single 160GB drive (same family and hardware, preferably). Comparing two drives in RAID0 to the same drive alone is just inherently unfair.
Click to expand...



I agree with you on that. Often a drive of double the size peforms considerably better just due to the density of the platters.
 
drizzt81 said:
Wow... Tom: if the local RAID-0 enthusiast burns you for your article, you have seriously screwed up. - nothing personal Tusken.
Click to expand...
I had a comment originally in my post predicting the shock that would come to you guys. I thought that would be a little presumptious so I took it out. :D

Met-AL said:
I wish someone would just do one set of benchmarks. I want to know if RAID 0 loads Cerbere Landing in Battlefield 2142 (insert level in favorite game) faster then a non RAID setup of the same drive and also vs the Raptor.
Click to expand...
Well I can tell you there just isn't one right answer. Too many RAID chipsets, add-in cards that all execute RAID differently and therefore, affect performance. I've generally had about a 15% performance increase across multiple onboard RAID solutions, though after some recent testing on a new motherboard, I can call the NVidia NF4 implementation total crap. All you can do is make the time and money investment to set it up and test for yourself on your machine for the right answer.
 
Provided you have a backup strategy and don't mind the increased noise, power draw and lost CPU cycles yup. You know whats even better, 4 of them in RAID10
 
There are new people here all of the time. They haven't read about dead horses and they need to at least know everything about the issue. It's only responsible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top