Intel X25-V SSD 40GB RAID 0 Benchmark Results

[loaked]

I bought 2 of these at best buy the other day. Thinking of just going with one and replacing my older HDD with something. I have done nothing to any kind of settings. Just plugged them in, the only setting, which i forget what it was, it was in the bios was I set something to 128k... I have never done this before, but here are some results in case anyone was curious or thinking of doing something like this. I have windows 7 64bit. EVGA LE 55 motherboard, using the RAID controller from the motherboard, and Intel i5-760.

This is my old hard drive I want to replace with either a WD Caviar black 1TB or 2 WD Caviar Blue's 320gb in RAID 0, any thoughts on that? I'm sure either one will outperform this lol. I have to purchase at Best Buy so I am kind of limited to the WD's.

Thanks for checking it out

 

[loaked]

So I guess this may be a silly question. I really built this rig around playing the new FFXIV online. Would I notice a difference in load times and such going with 2 WD Blues 320gb in Raid vs 1 WD Black 1tb? Maybe this shouldnt be in the SSD section, but I didnt know if I should start another post. I am still new to all this computer building, but am slowling learning the ropes.

 

[foscooter]

As per the 3rd graph, the reads peak out at almost 350MBps, so I think your set up os right. Your BIOS must be set to RAID, and 128K stripe size in spot on.

Run the 1st graph again, and see if you get an average over 300MBps, will a max close to 400MBps. That's what mine do.

IMHO: The 1TB will be faster (or close) than 2x320GB in RAID 0, due to data compression and platter size of the Black.

My 1TB Seagate 7200.12 1TB is almost as fast as my 2x500GB Seagate 7200.11 in RAID 0.

I posted my benchmarks in here, let me find them...couldn't find 'em, so here they are:

SSD benchmark: 2xIntel X25-V 40GB in RAID 0 -

HDD in RAID 0 benchmark: 2xSeagate 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0

HDD non-RAID: Seagate 7200.12 1TB

 

[loaked]

Best answer selected by loaked.

 

[loaked]

Awsome thanks, thats just he info I was looking for. Looks like the Access time is a hair better on the 1 drive, and although the average is slower, the minimum is much higher, not sure how big effect the minimum is has on everything, but i do know that access times are important figure.

And from what I have read it seems like the whole RAID 0 thing can be a headache if something goes slightly wrong with a drive. I mean I have a back up USB for improtant stuff, but its still a pain in the butt to reinstall everything, loose settings, updates, etc.

Again, thanks for your input.

 

[randomizer]

If one drive in RAID 0 fails, the data on both is useless. That's basically the issue.