Tweet
Originally posted by Technoid
nope
nope
Someone here with RAID 0, can I see your graph?
I just wanna see what kind of performance improvement shall I expect from a RAID 0 setup.
-
That's how I feel too. I've heard people see significantly faster Windows setup, faster game and app load,....But I don't see anything different here.
Someone here with RAID 0, can I see your graph? I just wanna see what kind of performance improvement shall I expect from a RAID 0 setup.
MSI K8N Neo 2 Platinum
AMD Athlon 64 3200
1024 MB PC3200 RAM
WD 160 GB HDD
2 x 80 GB Maxtor HDDs in RAID 1
ATI 9500 64 Videocard
Pioneer 108 DVD-RW
Pioneer 117 DVD-ROM
Windows XP Professional SP2 -
You probably won't see an improvement, the way Xp runs.Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.Comment
-
Generally it's seek time that pwns. Especially for Windows boot up (although on installs with little software, less complex system will outperform more complex system - time for RAID/SCSI card to detect drives).
With base Win2k install, there was no difference between Tyan TigerMPX/WD1200JB (slow post) and ECSK7S5A/WDC AC28004 (8.4/5400/512kB).
Ditto for game loading - lots of small files to load. Also I think most games compress textures before loading a level, so a faster CPU might yield better results.
The only benefit of RAID0 is saving/loading large files - video or large images, etc...
Hence 15k SCSI drive that is tuned for multiple IO acess, has Seek time in 5ms range and low CPU utilization with SCSI controller will pwn.
Defragmenting an IDE hard drive shows on desktop response even with 2 CPUs IME.Last edited by UtwigMU; 21 October 2003, 11:13.Comment
Comment