Cache makes an overall difference in the harddrives performance which will affect boot times and load times for games, but not gameplay itself given you have sufficient RAM. I would probably I'd probably RAID 0 the 2 existing drives into a 500GB array to boot from and buy 2x1.5TB/2TB drives (WD 1.5 Greens are $65) and put them in RAID 1. You can then image your RAID0 array to your RAID1 array and have good performance and redundacy.
Ok So what is the difference between a (Green 1TB 64mb and a black 1TB 64mb?) the price?
Tokencode, i wanted to rid the computer of the 250GB drive and put into into my old system, and sell it off. i would have to do some research to complete your suggestion aswell, but i could do it.
Greens are "green:" they are low-energy. They are slower than the blacks. If you want speed, stick with the blacks.
With all due respect to Tokencode, I would not mess with RAID0. It's true that it's faster, but it is more prone to failure and harder to recover after a failure. All your data and your OS should always be backed up; with RAID0, you must back them up and be prepared to lose your drives at any point. Odds are that you won't experience a failure, since you are a sample of one point, but the risks are high.
Personally, I would have one drive for data and one for the OS. But you can achieve the same effect by partitioning one drive with an OS partition and a data partition. In theory, you could re-purpose the 320 GB drive as the OS drive (is your OS really over 250 GB, or is that data?), but new drives are always faster than old drives.
Haha its a slang term for us Aussies, Rego is short for registration. Hence the "How ya goin mate, yeah the cars in getting its rego done"
As for the drives i wasn't sure how great of a difference it would be if i upgraded all my drives to SATAIII. I just know i have to spend money on a new drive, or 2, and was just after the best option available. (Preferably sticking with the OS drive and Data drive scenario)
The 320GB drive was just a spare. i have two storage drives really, just i specify them usually. ATM my 320 drive is nearly full and my OS drive has used about 72GB.
Other than the fact that RAID 0 is 2X more likely to fail, just because two physical drives are involved, is there some other reason RAID 0 is "more prone to failure"? Apples to apples, isn't one hard drive just as likely to fail as another hard drive (x2)? Or is there something in the RAID controller that is also likely to fail, thus making failure more like 3 or 4 or 5 times more likely?
I ask because I'm (literally in about 10 minutes) just about to format my new system drive as a RAID 0 (2 x 500GB) and do the same for my HD video drive (2 x 500GB) for working professionally in Premiere CS5. The last time I ever stripped my drives (RAID 0) was first on the Amiga Video Toaster (hahaha)—about 15 years ago— and then again when moving to Windows NT about 13 years ago.
I never had a failure then (nor did I understand the risks), but I've always kept an excellent backup routine and never had a problem with RAID 0 (yet). Do the risks really outweigh the cost/performance when speed is key, as it is in video post applications?
Other reason why RAID0 is more prone to failure: If the controller for a single drive fails, you connect it to any other controller. If the controller or motherboard for a RAID fails (this applies to most RAID levels), some random motherboard or RAID controller is unlikely to be able to rebuild it. Even in this late day and age, they just aren't compatible. That adds a significant risk.
The risks do not outweigh the cost / performance if you keep good backups. If you do not keep good backups, then it is a personal decision. I am risk-averse, so I bought a 128 GB SSD for my system drive and never considered RAID0 for the system drive.
Just to give you an idea of the difference, my system has the OS on an OCZ IBIS at start up it loads nearly immediately maybe 1-2 seconds after you type the pass word and hit enter. Games, and any other software, install and load extremely fast. As further example I believe my Win 7 64 install took about 10-15 mins.