Performance wise whats better? 3x 500gig RAID0 vs 1.5TB 7200rpm singl

Performance-wise, three drives in RAID 0 will be faster.

(I may be inviting a huge debate by making such a bald statement, but I believe it.)

In terms of reliability, three drives in RAID 0 are much more of a risk. If one drive dies, the other two are useless. With three drives, the chance of a failure in any given period of time very close to triples. And if the mobo fails, it can be very difficult to read the data off the drives even if they are in perfect condition.

So: get both the 3 500 GB drives and the 1.5 TB drive. Put the 1.5 TB drive in a removable bay, and do frequent backups. Take the drive out when not backing up, and keep it in, at least, a separate room.

I am just storing movies and stupid stuff I can live without if lost.

My pc is for play and fun... games and movies ect...

I keep pictures and documents on external, other pc and laptops.

So back up or failure is not a concern.

I would gladly sacrifice reliability and tripple my chances of problems for added performance

i was going to agree with 'WyomingKnott'... but if you put it that way... then ya - go for the 3x500gb in RAID 0... better performance for sure..!

get fast hd's for cheap... try these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

or these... if you want to $plurge a bit:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

the second option will be a smaller array (900GB)... but uber fast

I got two Samsung F3's 1TB....

I think I should be happy with them. For $70 each it seems like a solid choice

they're great drives

would putting them together in a RAID 0 array yield better performance ???

worth it?

absolutely... and the more HD's you add.. the more performance goes up, as well as you don't lose space. so totally worth it, as long as you remember that, if only 1 drive fails in RAID 0 -> you lose all the data

sweet.

So three drives > two drives ??

yup... 5>4>3>2

I shoulda bought another.. lol