Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Better RAID0 option, msata or data

Tags:
Last response: in Storage
Share
August 25, 2013 5:32:58 PM

First off let me thank this web page and community, over the last three days I have learned a lot.

That being said, my last question before I put together a gaming laptop is I am looking as SSD for everything and I am going to put it in RAID0. Is it better to put the SSD in the msata slots or the regular sata slots? It appears motherboard and HDD slots are all SATA III. I am looking to go with 2 x 250 GB Samsung EVO SSD drives, but do I put them in RAID0 configuration in the msata or just sata slots? Does it matter?

(I guess one other question, after reading for two days, it doesn't seem the GTX 780m is much better than the ATI 8970m for the $200 difference. Anyone have thoughts on that as well?)
a c 754 G Storage
August 25, 2013 5:38:40 PM

Quote:
my last question before I put together a gaming laptop is I am looking as SSD for everything and I am going to put it in RAID0


This prompts my standard question....Why?
What are you looking at to get out of a RAID array with SSD drives?
m
0
l
a b G Storage
August 25, 2013 5:42:15 PM

mobile gpus in general are very weak compared to desktop gpus. for a gaming system you are better off with a desktop. with that said...its partially preference between nvidia and ati. i dont like ati software so i always use nvidia.

raid 0 ssd for gaming is a complete waste of money. in general games do not benefit from ssd drives except perhaps for level loading and startup times. frame per second numbers are not increased.

you would be better off with a boot ssd and a larger data hdd for storage. in this way you would get the fast windows startup and snappy performance of a ssd drive while still not breaking the bank.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 25, 2013 5:55:02 PM

First off thank you for the replies.

Simply, I expect the RAID0 SSDs to perform faster than non RAID0 SSDs.

Second, after viewing an Australian build with 24 SATA 3 SSD drives in a RAID configuration, for sure you can surpass the 6/gbs. I am not fooling myself into anything near what they accomplished, but it proved the theory to me. Now I am not going that extreme, but in my opinion based on what I have been reading, there is really going to be some improvement to an already nice SSD read/write speed. I have thought about the advantages of adding a THIRD SSD drive (boot, OS) in the msata slot if using the primary HDD connections for a RAID configured pair of Samsung EVO SSDs. Money does become a slight concern in that scenario....so boot drive solely is out of the question, plus with RAID0 SSD's I am pretty sure I will boot up fast...which leads me back to my original question....should I put the two SSD's in the msata slots and RAID them, or should I put them in the primary HDD slot and RAID them?

As to the gpus, that seems to be what I am finding, if you can find drivers than tune ATI correctly, it is more bang for the buck, their top end performing roughly 10 percent slower in non CAD applications. However, if I can shift the $200 dollars from gps to a cpu upgrade instead, I would like to. My thoughts are an i7-4800 or 4900MQ with an 8970m is just as good as an i7-4700MQ with a 780m, meaning I get the extra cpu performance for real world (non gaming) activities.
m
0
l
a c 754 G Storage
August 25, 2013 6:05:59 PM

Quote:
Second, after viewing an Australian build with 24 SATA 3 SSD drives in a RAID configuration....


24 drives? That is what you're basing the increased performance on?
24 drives??

Read this all the way through, and then get back to us:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,...
m
0
l
a c 754 G Storage
August 25, 2013 6:10:49 PM

Additionally, you're building this into a laptop? For the love of FSM, why?
Crippled GPU, crippled CPU....maybe kinda sorta faster drive subsystem.

For an epeen waving contest, maybe. For actual performance? Not a chance.
m
0
l
August 25, 2013 6:23:35 PM

I have read that thread, that is what confirmed what I saw with my eyes in the video. No I am not basing this on that video and I clearly stated that in my post. I don't appreciate your tone USAFRetired....in the link that you want to me to review it even makes most of my point and a small point you are trying to turn into a huge point. Let me explain, the RAID0 config did perform better as expected, however under normal day to day workloads the 4k random speeds did not jump. Once the load was increased however, the RAID0 shown through. There is very little risk and lots of reward with going with my desired set up.

So again, due to your speaking down tone, I ask you only to reply to my question that is asked. I asked if SSD performs better directly on the motherboard or in the normal HDD SATA slots. One manufacturer offers what they call "Super RAID" in which the msata drives are in RAID config and one manufacturer will allow you to RAID SSDs in primary HDD slots.

Again, I appreciate what you think you are trying to convey, but tone it down please, it's not your money, nor the question that was posed to the forum.

Is this the attitude all new posters receive?
m
0
l
August 25, 2013 6:25:57 PM

USAFRet said:
Additionally, you're building this into a laptop? For the love of FSM, why?
Crippled GPU, crippled CPU....maybe kinda sorta faster drive subsystem.

For an epeen waving contest, maybe. For actual performance? Not a chance.


Wow, what a logical response, I can see you have thought out all the angles, like maybe I am not sedentary, travel a lot for work, (which leads to no long term perm address) and a desktop doesn't make sense when you pretty much live out of long term hotel rentals or are in Asia? Would you like me to carry the desktop through Homeland?
m
0
l
a b G Storage
August 25, 2013 6:26:40 PM

He's right - you will see zero benefit in gaming with raid on ssd'd but will add twice the risk of complete loss. Just no return on investment. Anand, Tom's, MaximumPC all have the same conclusion.
m
0
l
August 25, 2013 6:31:29 PM

J_E_D_70 said:
He's right - you will see zero benefit in gaming with raid on ssd'd but will add twice the risk of complete loss. Just no return on investment. Anand, Tom's, MaximumPC all have the same conclusion.


They only share those conclusions in GAMING, however, do you know the FUTURE of gaming? No return on my investment? It seems to me that if data loads increase I will be quite prepared. As to twice the chance of loss, I will take a .19% chance doubled.

I will ask somewhere else, no one here seems to want to answer the question as posed and I am being insulted through insinuation of male member comparison contents.

m
0
l
a c 754 G Storage
August 25, 2013 6:39:16 PM

woofblitzer said:
USAFRet said:
Additionally, you're building this into a laptop? For the love of FSM, why?
Crippled GPU, crippled CPU....maybe kinda sorta faster drive subsystem.

For an epeen waving contest, maybe. For actual performance? Not a chance.


Wow, what a logical response, I can see you have thought out all the angles, like maybe I am not sedentary, travel a lot for work, (which leads to no long term perm address) and a desktop doesn't make sense when you pretty much live out of long term hotel rentals or are in Asia? Would you like me to carry the desktop through Homeland?


I get the need a laptop for frequent travel purposes. BTDT. We're not all newbies out here.
But with a laptop, you have to accept the limitations. Especially with regard to gaming. CPU, GPU, heat...

But go for it. Build your SSD RAID array. When your gaming performance sees little if any real world increase over just a regular SSD, you can at least say you tried.

Keep good backups.
m
0
l
August 25, 2013 6:39:31 PM

Using the logic I am being supplied in this thread, we should all still be suing 32 bit because it is faster for 3.2 GB loads and under....pointing out one drawback compared to several advantages is logic.

If you want to caution me, why not something like "beware the parity error" in RAID? I would be very interested in hearing that.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
August 25, 2013 7:58:36 PM

@wolfblitzer

ssd in raid 0 can definitely be faster however in most cases they are not significantly so and raid 0 poses a high risk of data loss.

current gen games can be ran perfectly fine from normal hdd disks so a non raid ssd is plenty fast for future planning. the ssd speed has almost nothing to do with gaming performance as this is mostly rendered by the gpu and calculated by the cpu. all the hdd needs to do is be able to provide the information fast enough which even standard hdd drives can do.

any possible gain you get out of a ssd raid 0 will be blown away by the huge losses of a mobile gpu and mobile cpu.

a .19% chance you say of failure you say... obviously you havent seen it happen. i've seen raid 1 arrays (mirroring) fail let alone raid 0. it can and does happen. its not worth the risk. for those that think it is worth the risk they need to take special precautions to safegaurd against data loss.

listen... we honestly couldnt care less what you decide to do. if you want to spend $1200 buying 3 ssd drives the go for it.

all we are trying to do is give you advice so that you can make an "informed" decision. watching 24ssd in raid 0 compared to a laptop is not informed.

hate us all you want for speaking the truth but we are only here to help you.
m
0
l
August 25, 2013 8:15:20 PM

Wow, I see serious lack of reading comprehension skills in this forum. My initial views were based on the thread I found here, the same USAFRetired posted...that led me to the video. A desktop computer is not an option. I know mobile parts are less than their counterparts on a desktop. I am looking to creative solutions and premium parts to overcome this insurmountable hurdle as much as possible.

Wow, in less than 72 hours I have gone thoroughly impressed with the posters on this board to zero impressed. Has nothing with the fact if you wanna argue SSD vs SSD RAID....that WAS NEVER MY QUESTION. I have researched that enough to come to my own conclusions.

Number 2, NONE OF YOU "EXPERTS" have even attempted to ANSWER the question I have posed.

Is MSATA SSD faster (directly on motherboard) than a SSD connected in the normal way.

Focus on those words only.

Projected build

i7-4700MQ 2.4GHz
nvidia GTX 780m
16GB Dual channel at 1600MHz (Kingston Hyper X)
1 msata Intel 525 256 GB SSD
2 x Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB SSD in RAID0
Visiontek Killer 1202 wifi/blue tooth
95% NTSC Gamut Matte 15.6 Matte 1920 x 1080
6 x Blu Ray Reader
Win 8
for $2300 and free shipping

looks like a machine, that yes is not a desktop, but regardless should be able to handle whatever is thrown at it for 4-5 years.
m
0
l
a c 754 G Storage
August 25, 2013 8:38:15 PM

Quote:
Has nothing with the fact if you wanna argue SSD vs SSD RAID....that WAS NEVER MY QUESTION. I have researched that enough to come to my own conclusions.


Except for RAID0 appearing in the title, and then twice in the initial statement.
And then again in your most recent post.

OK. mSATA vs a regular SATA connection.
That depends on the motherboard. How fast is the mSATA slot? If they are all SATA III, then it apparently does not matter. All the same speed.

Go for it.
m
0
l
August 25, 2013 9:02:35 PM

USAFRet said:
Quote:
Has nothing with the fact if you wanna argue SSD vs SSD RAID....that WAS NEVER MY QUESTION. I have researched that enough to come to my own conclusions.


Except for RAID0 appearing in the title, and then twice in the initial statement.
And then again in your most recent post.

OK. mSATA vs a regular SATA connection.
That depends on the motherboard. How fast is the mSATA slot? If they are all SATA III, then it apparently does not matter. All the same speed.

Go for it.


of course it APPEARED, it was premised into my question, but not my question....you really are not good with this....I asked about RAID0 the MSATA SSD's or the primary and secondary SSD's. Of course RAID0 appeared in the context of the question.

All that being said, that is my concern....I am not finding any Clevo/MSI barebones that confirm P157M or GT60 in their newest iterations as SATAIII in the MSATA plug. If they all offer only SATAII then it is a moot point. Sager NP8255 would also be a reference to the Clevo.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b G Storage
August 26, 2013 6:24:00 AM

Quote:
looks like a machine, that yes is not a desktop, but regardless should be able to handle whatever is thrown at it for 4-5 years.


http://www.notebookcheck.net/In-Review-Nvidia-GeForce-G...

as it stands the gtx780m is capable of completely maxing out some games at 1080p however even some current gen games like crysis 3 and similar high graphics games can absolutely crush the mobile card to unplayable fps unless you lower the quality. typically you would reduce the AA to try and make up for it.

if you follow the history of gaming graphic improvments as well has how it affects hardware the newest games to come out will likely make crysis 3 look less like a beast and more like a kitten. if you have a machine that could max out crysis 3 now it would likely be crushed as well for the new generation of high end games let alone an underpowered mobile gpu. truth.

i will be entirely realistic here: that laptop will likely be able to have 1-2 years of good gaming peformance followed by some average gaming performance. it will max out all older games as well as a few newer titles depending on the graphical requirements however for crysis 4, battlefield 5 or whatever new games come out which can be demanding on graphics you will have to cut back on the graphic settings to make them playable.

----

what i found on msata vs sata is that it is essentialy meant for laptops as a way to shrink everything down.

i did find this interesting quote though

Quote:
mSATA drives are almost always 4-channel which is slower than their 8-channel 2.5" counterparts. Your sequential reads and writes don't show a lot of difference but when you get data on the flash the mSATA parts slow down faster. Random performance takes a larger hit as well with 4-channel parts but again, when data is on the flash.


as well as a claim from one of the gpu manufacturers stating that the ports were very similar and that there wasnt any performance increase.

cant verify this by testing since i dont have two to compare but from what i've read around you can expect anywhere from around the same performance to a slight hit in performance. it will NOT be a performance gain though.

i do believe this answered both your questions which essential was "sata vs msata" and "is the gtx780m good vs ..." since you can read the performance charts i listed above and compare for yourself. drivers do have a bit to do with it as well and often its a crapshoot between nv and ati depending on specific game drivers. unless of course some revolutionary product comes out which isnt the case right now.

----

since you seem set on raid arraying ssd drives... go ahead and do it. just realize that you arent going to notice the difference especially for your application (gaming) and that you wasted about $700 more than you needed to.

my laptop is a few years old now and was only a mid ranged laptop with a 635m and without a 1080p screen however i used it for casual gaming. i ended up putting a samsung 830 256 into it and the boot time and windows snappyness are great. gaming performance however is not affected.

if you want a gaming laptop your best bet is again... a boot ssd and a normal hdd drive.

the 840pro 512 is also a good choice. remember there is a definite diference between the "pro" and the "normal" version which mainly is the type of flash used. the pro will last longer and is more reliable although samsung in general (as well as intel) are far above the industry norm in terms of reliability of ssd drives. most other manufacturers fall way short.
Share
August 26, 2013 11:27:30 AM

thank you for the reply

been talking to Origin PC techs this morning. they did confirm that since msata is a chipset and not a true drive, being on the motherboard it is only two channel. however, the read and write speeds are in align with a low end SSD. The msata connections are SATA3. The primary HDD connections are also SATA3, IF you choose SSD drives. In talking to one of their head "architects" he confirmed that if I am running two Samsung Pro 840's SSDs in RAID0 that there is no need to include a msata drive with the OS on it. Just put the OS on the RAID0 drives.

Thank you again for all your answers, you may close this thread.
m
0
l
a c 813 G Storage
August 26, 2013 6:38:35 PM

True but if you use , say, a 64gb msata drive as your OS drive, then that frees up the space on the Raid0 plus limits the OS's constant usage of its drive to the msata. To me this seems like a well spent ~$60
m
0
l
!