Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Raid 5, SAS, or SSD better for gaming?

Last response: in Storage
Share
December 24, 2008 11:21:27 PM

For pure gaming what would be better? a RAID 5 with 5-6 normail 7,200 RPM HHD? 1 big SAS drive? or maybe ever 1 large SSD? i've got a budget of about $350-$400 of this. my current system is an i7 920 with p6t mobo, and 6 GB corsair dominator RAM, maybe 12 soon lol. I play mostly l4d, crysis, world in conflict, FC2, games of this nature.

More about : raid sas ssd gaming

December 25, 2008 12:47:44 AM

Get an ssd.
December 25, 2008 12:58:47 AM

yea, this is one of my options, but i want to know why i should get ssd over RAID 5 disks or SAS drive. just telling me to get this or that does not help me, i need to know which is best for my needs.
Related resources
December 25, 2008 1:01:07 AM

save the money and buy a better graphics card, or just save it until the next gen of cards come out. The differences you will see in gaming from SSD's or raid arrays will be minimal, and mostly in load times
December 25, 2008 3:21:58 AM

yes, that's where i want to see the improvements in in load time, i can run FC2 at 100 FPS (no joke) on ultra high, i no need new gpu, but thx for advice.

please someone tell me or send me to good benchmarks one ssd vs raid vs sas or something, i can't find much as far as ssd vs raid 5 or ssd vs sas or sas vs raid.

just want something with good security and SPEED TO BOOST SEEK AND LOAD TIMES. i have a kick *** pc, but i have suck *** HDD's and i want to improve on this area of my pc. just need some help.

thx for all you comments, just not what i'm looking for i guess, sorry guys
December 25, 2008 3:44:29 AM

From my understanding raid 0 is the fastest raid set up.

RAID 0 distributes data across several disks in a way that gives improved speed and full capacity, but all data on all disks will be lost if any one disk fails.


RAID 5 combines three or more disks in a way that protects data against loss of any one disk; the storage capacity of the array is reduced by one disk.

A good review of a SSD can be found at http://www.guru3d.com/article/gskill-ssd-solid-state-di...
I personally would just get 2 640g drives and set them in a raid 0 set up, and back up your data!!!!!!

Most affordable SSD drives are under 100g and are for mainly setting up your OS / important programs, not really for saving and writing to the disk all the time.

You have to buy at least 3 HDD's for raid 5 to even work...

You might also be interested in a 10,000rpm drive such as http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... to run your OS / games and a 1tb drive to hold all your photos music videos etc...
December 25, 2008 3:57:04 AM

thx stonedallday420 for your help, i've been leaning to Raid 5 with 5 disks, due to security, but i have a raid 0 right now and it works well for most things, just would like to get my load times up lol
December 25, 2008 4:30:47 AM

Look here: AnandTech SSD Tests

The SSDs are only marginally faster than the VelociRaptor with game load times. Hence, the fastest would naturally be two SSDs or V-Raptors in RAID 0. I would prefer the latter. :sol: 
a b G Storage
December 25, 2008 4:51:21 AM

kds_119 said:
thx stonedallday420 for your help, i've been leaning to Raid 5 with 5 disks, due to security, but i have a raid 0 right now and it works well for most things, just would like to get my load times up lol



Another option if you want to get faster load times is a 4 drive RAID0 array. If you've got the SATA ports, buy another 2 of the same drives you have now, it may not be quite as fast but certainly cheaper than raptors and SSD's.

Check out the RAID scaling and articles.

December 25, 2008 4:24:10 PM

I, personally, (if I had the money) would go 2 300GB VelociRaptors in RAID 0. VelociRaptors are so much cheaper then they used to be, and still perform great.

Just my $.02
December 25, 2008 5:35:06 PM

Yeah....the one second difference in load times that $400 bucks can buy makes my epeen get chubby too, but your money is better spent on upgrading to an i7 940, getting that extra ram, or buying a better vga or doubling up if you already have the best one. Upgrades in these other areas will make your games run smoother and isn't that what it's all about?

By the way, I'm using a seagate 1tb 7200rpm 32mb cache and my load time for most modern games is only about 3 seconds. Not fast enough?

Sounds like your system is gonna kick a** whatever you use for a storage solution.

Have fun and enjoy!
December 26, 2008 8:09:01 AM

if anyone ever decide to do raid then don't use those crappy onboard ones.

a real raid controller running raid5 kicking 4-500MB/s is real sweet

just for gaming then there is no real need for raid or anything, any modern hdd can server games just fine

SSD is not mature enough for my taste, limited lifetime, really expensive if you want a fast one and so on, give it a few years and they will be great
December 26, 2008 11:17:19 AM

hey thx guys for all the responses, they are all great answers! I'm looking very heavily into v-raptors right now and they look quick.

I've got one other question tho, If i get 2 300GB vraptors in RAID 0 and 5 samsung 500GB hdd's in a RAID 5 with the onboard raid controller on my asus P6T will this give me a boost or slow me down vs a dedicated raid board?

also, does anyone have some THROUGH PUT specs for the asus p6t raid controller?

thx everyone, hope all of you had an awesome christmas!!!

Best solution

December 26, 2008 4:41:16 PM

the onboard is usually not too good, and most people complain about the performance of them, often makes the harddrives slower then if they were run as single drives

instead of 5x 500gb may I suggest the 5x 640gb? they are made on dual platter and cost only slightly more then the 500gb sometimes even cost slightly less and they use the newer higher density platters which gives better performance.

I got 3 640gb drives and I love them, super fast quiet and run quite cool as well
Share
December 26, 2008 6:59:52 PM

wow, i did not know that, THX SO MUCH!
December 27, 2008 4:37:48 AM

DXRick said:
Look here: AnandTech SSD Tests

The SSDs are only marginally faster than the VelociRaptor with game load times. Hence, the fastest would naturally be two SSDs or V-Raptors in RAID 0. I would prefer the latter. :sol: 


even if that were true velociraptors are hells loud and hot.
December 27, 2008 7:04:37 AM

actualy they aren't all that hot, they can be used without their 3½" frame and just used as 2½" drives and they aren't that noisy compared to the older raptors which sounded like machineguns when the head moved around. But if you compare them to 100% silent drives then any noise is infinetly louder then that.
May 25, 2009 3:42:11 PM

Godiwa said:
the onboard is usually not too good, and most people complain about the performance of them, often makes the harddrives slower then if they were run as single drives


actually the Intel ICH10R chipset on the p6t motherboard is a very capable onboard RAID controller, I've come across a number of interesting benchmarks with SSD's in RAID on that controller - like this one:

another note: the anandtech article with the SSD reviews is almost a year old - the SSD's in the charts are dinosaurs. Consider the faster SSD offerings from OCZ, like the Vertex or the new Summit. You can get a lot of SSD for the price of a good hardware RAID controller.

another link:
a c 127 G Storage
May 26, 2009 1:30:09 PM

If you use the Velociraptor outside its 3,5" mounting bracket, you void any warranty. And rightly so, because it will overheat quickly if there's no continual fresh stream of air cooling the disk. The disk produces alot of heat for a 2,5" disk, and limited surface to loose heat by convection. That's why you get the mounting brackets its not really optional.

Second, the chipset controller is going to be the fastest, any PCI-express or PCI controller will have a slightly higher latency. The SSD test isn't really an SSD vs HDD test, and no high-performance SSD was included to make the test really interesting.

A good SSD will beat any HDD configuration, even 20 disks in RAID0.
May 27, 2009 5:55:21 AM

The VelociRaptor is available with or without the 3.5" shell. The 3.5" shell is not required, it won't overheat if you have even half-decent cooling, and the warranty is the same across models. (If you take a 3.5" model and strip the shell, you may jeopardize the warranty, but there's no reason to as you can get the same without the 3.5" shell).

WDC model numbers:

WD3000BLFS: 2.5" bare
WD3000HLFS: 3.5" "backplane ready" (intended for standard 3.5" SATA backplanes)
WD3000GLFS: 3.5" "SATA connected" (intended for typical consumer use w/o backplane).

The WD3000GLFS ("SATA connected") was released first for the consumer market because additional time/testing was required to qualify the WD3000HLFS ("backplane ready", i.e., enterprise) market. The WD3000BLFS was subsequently released for OEM/enterprise markets that wanted a higher-density 2.5" form factor.

There are numerous vendors happy to sell you whatever model you want, so there's no need to screw around with a 3.5" model and jeopardize your warranty removing the shell if you want a 2.5" model without the shell.

It is a pretty quiet and cool-running drive; significantly lower power, cooler and quieter than the 150MB VelociRaptor, and significantly less than most (all?) 2.5" SAS drives, and quite a few 7.2K drives (http://www.storagereview.com reviewed it and it's well worth reading).


p.s. Yes, for most people a "good SSD" is likely the best and easiest choice for overall performance--if they can afford the $/GB premium. No, a "good SSD" will not "beat any HDD configuration" unless you have virtually infinite $ to spend. It all depends on budget, workload, configuration and your goals.
June 17, 2009 9:12:33 PM

I would see if you can get your hands on the gigabyte I-ram, a 4gb ram storage solution, however this is somwhat limited, as it uses a SATA connection. If you found a raid controller and a big enough motherboard to accomidate the i-rams, you could create a fearsome setup with fast load times.

This wont help you with security, as the battery life on these are pitifully short 50hrs.

Depending on you setup, and ram you have availible, you could create a virtual ramdisk, (some mobo's support 128GB of ram, with a X64 OS) and save the game data there and even move your pagefile there for instant load times. As this uses your computers Ram, it uses the data bus between the ram and the CPU, so the bottleneck is dramaticaly reduced, allowing you to achive datarates up in the 2000MB/sec range. :lol: 

This is for performance and i would not recommend this for anything you want to keep. I have tested this method using vitualbox, and installed windows 2000 onto a ramdisk I created using 2GB of ddr2. just the whole install took around 2 minutes. I used a disk image also saved to ram, which i also defragmented instantly XD

The I-ram deivced will allow you to have some failover protection, but you will be limited by the battery ultimatly.

Hope this helps if your looking for raw power.
!