View Full Version : WD Raptor RAID0 no performance gain??

07-01-04, 02:23 PM
So says anandtech...

07-01-04, 03:03 PM
Yeah I saw similar articles like this on the web when I was deciding what to get for my new system a few months ago. I just couldn't bring myself to put together a RAID0 setup when reliability is a concern and the cost is higher to get no negligible performance boost. I find the Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA drives to perform well enough for my needs for the time being.

07-01-04, 04:39 PM
IMO, copying large files across the disc is faster noticeably with RAID0 configurations.

Loading levels in FC and UT2K4, OTOH, is not so much quicker... It depends on what you plan on doing with it IMO. I use DVD2One to compress discs down before I burn them sometimes and IMO the extra throughput comes in handy there.

Ice Nine
07-01-04, 05:52 PM
That article is questionable at best. They aren't exactly using the best test scenarios.

For gamers, yeah, I gotta agree with it. Game level loading isn't usually slow because of disk I/O. It comes into play, but there's other factors.

But if you're working with large files constantly (who isn't with 4.7GB worth of RAR files coming down off usenet) or using apps that benefit (Photoshop, which i'm constantly working with), you'll never go back to anything but RAID0 on a desktop. As a hobby, i'm a photographer. On the weekends after taking a healthy amount of pictures, I create a big ole photoshop batch job to do certain things to my images. I'm usually working with 15-30GB in RAW files (6-8MB each) that expand to 36MB TIFF files (16bit/channel) each. The time I save when crunching these files is measured in HOURS with a dual Raptor setup as opposed to a single drive setup. On a weekend, that's significant to me :)

They also didn't install the Intel Application Accelerator RAID edition. For me that made a noticeable difference in performance.

07-01-04, 06:27 PM
Load times can be a lot faster depending on the stripe size. @ 16k my Far Cry load times were very very very fast. The downside was the near 10% CPU usage so I took it to 128k. And even @ 128k my load times are noticably quicker than my best friend's rig which is nearly identical, except he's only running one 36 gig Raptor. And there's definetely no doubt about it when ripping DVDs either.
I wouldn't worry at all about reliability with these Raptors. I haven't heard any horror stories and there's no reason to think anything bad will happen when they're really SCSI hds that come w/ 5 year warranties. Of course I backup every week or two anyways, but I don't feel any pity for people who don't do that nowadays, it's just common sense.

07-01-04, 09:28 PM
I had a single Raptor and then added a second one, the speed increase was not noticable in games, so I sent it back and just kept the one.

I agree with Anandtech. For games, it is a waste. It does have advantages for other applications, but most people here wont be using those.