One last go with hard drive options. RAID worth it?

[zaaephod]

I'm sure this topic has many opposing views, but I'm still hovering over this choice. I've never run a system in any RAID mode before, so I'm new to this.

This will be a higher end gaming rig, with an OC'd Q6600 (hoping to get to about 3.6ghz if my cooler will allow that).

I've been reading that higher speed drives and RAID setups really don't increase the actual game speeds, just load times. Is this true? From my experience, when rounding a corner in a game, say bf 2142, when the new images begin to load into memory, this is where it gets choppy. By the time things smooth out, I'm dead... again.

My original plan was to go with 2x150gb raptors with RAID 0 set up for speed. I know the downfalls (one drive fails, you're SOL). I was also going to go with a WD 750gb 7200rpm drive for pure storage. I was going to run the OS and the games from the raptors. The downside to this is that I was nearing $450 - $500 just on hard drives. While this IS in my budget, that money could go elsewhere. Now I just can't decide. Apparently knowing more about a part doesn't make it easier to decide

1) Have you used RAID 0?

2) it really worth it?

If not, is it better to put the OS on its own drive, or just partition it for the OS? Should I just go with another 7200rpm 150-200gb drive for the OS and games?

What I really need to know here is, what's the best drive setup for a gaming rig in your opinion?

I do need to store some music, videos, and images, so I'm fine with getting a 'storage' drive, but I'm just stumped on the OS / gaming drive.

Thanks a bunch!

 

[nvalhalla]

RAID is worth it, "RAID 0" is not. You will not see a performance increase of any useful amount with RAID 0, however a RAID 1 or 5 is very good for it's redundancy.

"From my experience, when rounding a corner in a game, say bf 2142, when the new images begin to load into memory, this is where it gets choppy. By the time things smooth out, I'm dead... again. "

This should be video card related, not HDD.

 

[zaaephod]

So, what I just read on this other site is wrong?

"To reach maximum capacity, many gamers hook up multiple hard drives in a RAID configuration. In such cases, data files are divided and stored on each of the drives. There are a many types of RAID configurations but for performance seekers, RAID 0 is not only the simplest but also the fastest. Here, data files are broken down into stripes of a particular size and then sent to each disk in the array. Small files made up of a single stripe reside on a single drive while larger files – made up of several stripes - get divided among the various drives in the array. With multiple drives simultaneously accessing the data files, performance is enhanced. RAID 0 also eliminates redundancy routines used in other RAID configurations thus increasing performance even further."

Source: http://www.techspot.com/article/49-the-hard-drive-factor/


EDIT: ---- I don't mean to be cocky, I just want to understand.

 

[nukemaster]

That quote is dead on......

You will see the biggest improvements from raid0 in video editing....but games DO see an improvement.

Not all games will see as much however. Games with allot of compressed files may wind up being bottlenecked by the fact that a cpu can only decompress so fast....

Another even more important factor for load times is access times. Since the game files are not always located in order the drive head has to move around to get the data it needs(this also applies to running apps in the background....)

So faster drives like 10000rpm raptors will beat even dual(Raid0) 7200rpm drives when it comes to accessing lots of small files from all over(multitasking or bad fragmentation)....but with big files the dual 7200s will win....

Most game developers know that hard drives are the slowest part of a modern computer anyway. That is why games have load screens. during this time the game will load as much as it can into system ram and video ram. What does this mean for you? Well it means on average raid0 will give you faster load times(but not 2x faster, but still faster). Once in the game(its in ram now....and ram is FAST!!!), most of the loading will be done from ram to video ram. So raid0 will not increase FPS(there are some games that load on the fly, there is help here, but such games are normally programed so bad the pausing is unavoidable with mechanical drives there is still too much latency[i know 10miliseconds sounds fast, but there is faster stuff on the way])

Raid will be up to you....I use it with no regrets

No matter what you run partitioning can be a good idea.

c: windows
d: files

There are 3 main advantages here

1 - Since your drive is faster at the start(outside of the platter), there is a slight increase in average speed for the windows partition.
2 - With you files over on D: if you have to reinstall windows your files are safe over on the other partition
3 - It decreases fragmentation. Trust me video editing can fragment bad......

Also what ever you do....always make regular back-ups. Hard drives don't last forever....

 

[nhobo]

On a price/performance basis, RAID0 comes in second to last, RAIDed Raptors come in last.

 

[4745454b]

If you have the game load/dead again problem, it might be an issue with RAM size also. If my memory serves, the battlefield games use a lot of ram, the more you have the better. If you are trying to play the game with 512MBs of ram, or 1GB if you use Vista, then you might want to try getting more ram.

Getting faster harddrives shouldn't make any difference in FPS. Once the game is loaded into ram, the harddrive is out of the equation. Don't spend money on more/faster drives, just get more memory which is faster then AID0/Raptors. AID0 and raptors will load levels faster, but I wouldn't get them at the expense of other things. For instance, if you are looking at getting either another drive for AID0, or upgrading your video card to something other then the 8600GT, get the faster video card. Moving from a single drive to an AID0 setup won't effect your FPS. Moving from the 8600GT (~$100) to a 3850 (~180, the $80 that you saved from not getting the other 7200RPM drive) will provide a lot more FPS. Only worry about adding Raptors, AID0 setups, soundcards, physX cards, etc if your computer is already good. Don't buy that stuff if you are still using weak CPUs, GPUs, low amounts of ram, etc.

 

[zaaephod]

Okay, thanks a bunch for all the info guys.

As it turns out, I was able to go with 1 x 150gb raptor and 1 x 750 gb storage drive. With the money saved by not buying two raptors, I was able to squeeze in a second video card to run in crossfire mode. As much as RAID was tempting, this seemed to be a better combination all together. I can always get another one or two HDDs later on.

Here's the final setup, running on XP home. I will be ordering within the next couple days:
(Sorry no links, I have to get to work.)

Antec Nine Hundred Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - Retail

ASUS 20X DVD±R DVD Burner with LightScribe Black SATA Model DRW-2014L1T

Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB 10,000 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard Drive

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD7500AAKS 750GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive

2 x SAPPHIRE 100211 Radeon HD 2900XT 1GB 512-bit GDDR4 PCI Express x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card

Creative 70SB046A00000 7.1 Channels PCI Interface Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Professional Series (Chosen because I love SB with my guitar...)

PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750 Quad (Black) EPS12V 750W Power Supply

Crucial Ballistix Tracer 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory

GIGABYTE GA-X38-DQ6 LGA 775 Intel X38 ATX Ultra Durable 2, Ultra Cooling Intel Motherboard

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80562Q6600

Tuniq Tower 120 P4 & K8 CPU Cooler

I have a bunch of other accessories picked too, including a flash drive, memory cooler, keyboard, track ball, fan controllers, front mount IO panel, etc.

 

[nukemaster]

Well someones gonna be happy. Thats gonna be a sweet system.....

 

[4745454b]

I would not have bought the 2900s. To expensive for what you get. Two 3870s would have been better. If its not to late, make the switch. Other then that, it look fine.