aLeXv305 Posted October 11, 2006 Posted October 11, 2006 What will be faster? (2) Raptor 74 GB in Raid 0 or (2) SATA 300s in Raid 0 Just a question. Anyone know? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caffeinejunkie Posted October 11, 2006 Posted October 11, 2006 300s should have faster burst speed and in the end will be a much better deal so I say go with the 300s. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdingeling Posted October 11, 2006 Posted October 11, 2006 yea, u get much more space for probably even less money! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kash Posted October 12, 2006 Posted October 12, 2006 yea, u get much more space for probably even less money! But what's the point of all that space with a RAID 0 array? If you're going for sheer speed and money is no object, I would suggest the Raptors. Even if two SATAII drives end up being faster, I find that to be a total waste as you can't really use them for storage. 600GB becomes totally useless because how can you possibly fill up that space with things you're willing to lose, like Windows and some programs/games? Storing music, movies, and documents on a RAID 0 array is simply stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehit Posted October 12, 2006 Posted October 12, 2006 see the images i posted in this thread. my access time is much faster with the Raptor, but the burst speed is low. explained by Bigred in the post... my (2)160's RAID0 array has much slower access time, but a much higher burst rate. my (2) 320's RAID0 array is about the same as the 160's in access speed, but is pitiful in burst rate. i think this is due to the 595 gigs it is trying to burst from. i will defer to Bigred to explain that part... my (2) 150 Raptors crashed and burned. i have the new ones in the closet waiting for the next system i build. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamikaze_Badger Posted October 12, 2006 Posted October 12, 2006 But what's the point of all that space with a RAID 0 array? If you're going for sheer speed and money is no object, I would suggest the Raptors. Even if two SATAII drives end up being faster, I find that to be a total waste as you can't really use them for storage. 600GB becomes totally useless because how can you possibly fill up that space with things you're willing to lose, like Windows and some programs/games? Storing music, movies, and documents on a RAID 0 array is simply stupid. Anime, my friend... anime... I'd go for the two SATA 300s tbh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kash Posted October 12, 2006 Posted October 12, 2006 Anime, my friend... anime... I'd go for the two SATA 300s tbh. Again, you're proving my point. Why would you fill a RAID 0 array with videos? 600GB is A LOT of space. Would you be willing to lose even half of that space's worth of anime in case the array failed? In all honesty, I'd rather stick those two 300GB drives independently into my system, especially if they were SATAII drives. I would use one as the main drive, possibly partitioned to play around with other OSes, and the second one as a storage/backup drive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehit Posted October 12, 2006 Posted October 12, 2006 my two 160's in RAID0 encode video much faster than a single SATA drive. i have no idea why, but have seen the real time results... i have 5 grand children and spend tons of time converting digital video from my camcorder to DVD. my P4 3.2 extreme machine cannot hold a candle to the FX-60... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdingeling Posted October 12, 2006 Posted October 12, 2006 [hijack] hei rehit, what the heck are you running your FX60 at only 2.8 for? Should be able to get at least a nice 3.0 outta there with that cooler! [/hijack] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehit Posted October 12, 2006 Posted October 12, 2006 i can get 3.0... but i am running it 2.8 24/7... i can get 720/920 on my video cards too... but i do not leave them that way 24/7. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdingeling Posted October 12, 2006 Posted October 12, 2006 well, why not Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now