Benchmark System And Software
We used the same benchmark suite found in our SSD Charts to measure and compare the performance of different single- and multi-drive configurations of Samsung's 840 Pro. First, we tested the drives on their own: one 128, 256, and 512 GB SSD alone. Then, we then put two 128 GB and two 256 GB SSDs in RAID 0, sending each array through our benchmark suite.
- Booting up Windows 8. The clock starts when the POST screen vanishes and stops when the Windows desktop appears.
- Shutting down Windows 8. After Windows 8 runs for three minutes, we shut it down and start the clock. The clock stops once the system powers off.
- Booting up Windows 8 and Adobe Photoshop. After Windows 8 boots up, a script starts the image editor Adobe Photoshop CS6 and loads a photo with a resolution of 15,000x7,266 pixels and a size of 15.7 MB. Once this is complete, Adobe Photoshop is closed. The clock starts after the POST screen and stops when Adobe Photoshop closes. We perform this benchmark five times.
- Five applications. After booting up Windows 8, a script starts five different applications. The clock starts when the first application launches and stops when the last one closes. We perform this benchmark five times as well.
Script for the Five-Application Benchmark
- Load a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation and then close Microsoft PowerPoint.
- Start the Autodesk 3ds Max 2013 command line renderer and render a picture with a resolution of 100x50 pixels. The picture is so small because we’re benchmarking the SSD, not the CPU.
- Start the built-in ABBYY FineReader 11 benchmark and convert a test page.
- Start the built-in MathWorks MATLAB benchmark and execute it once.
- Start Adobe Photoshop CS6 and load the same picture used in the third real-world benchmark, but in the original TIF format with a resolution of 29,566x14,321 pixels and a size of 501 MB.
|Benchmark System Hardware|
|LGA 1155 Platform||Asus P8Z77-V Pro, Chipset: Intel Z77 Express, BIOS: 1805|
|LGA 1155 Processor||Intel Core i7-3770K (22 nm, Ivy Bridge, D2), 4C/4T, 3.5 GHz, 4 x 256 KB L2, Cache, 6 MB L3 Cache w/ HD Graphics 4000, 95 W TDP, 3.9 GHz max. Turbo Boost|
|Dual DDR3 RAM||2 x 8 GB DDR3-1600 CL10-10-10-27 (Corsair Vengeance CMZ16GX3M2A1600C10)|
|SSD System Drive (I/O and General Performance Benchmarks)||Samsung 840 Pro, 256 GB, Firmware DXM04B0Q, SATA 6 Gb/s|
|Benchmark Drive SSDs||Samsung 840 Pro, 128 GB, Firmware DXM04B0Q, SATA 6 Gb/s|
|Row 6 - Cell 0||Samsung 840 Pro, 256 GB, Firmware DXM04B0Q, SATA 6 Gb/s|
|Row 7 - Cell 0||Samsung 840 Pro, 512 GB, Firmware DXM04B0Q, SATA 6 Gb/s|
|Power Supply||Seasonic X-760, SS-760KM Active PFC F3|
|General Benchmarks||h2benchw 3.16 PCMark 7 1.0.4|
|I/O Performance Benchmarks||IOMeter 2006.07.27 Fileserver Benchmark Webserver Benchmark Database Benchmark Workstation Benchmark Streaming Reads Streaming Writes 4K Random Reads 4K Random Writes|
|Real World Benchmarks||3ds Max 2013 Finereader 11 Matlab 2012b Photoshop CS6 Powerpoint 2010|
|System Software and Drivers|
|Operating System||Windows 8 x64 Pro|
2nd kind of cool, right?
If you don't care about the speed boost of RAID 0 I would suggest you not RAID 0 them but just use them separately as two 512GB drives. By doing this you have less risk of losing all of your data because your data won't be mixed through both drives.
KamabPutting them in RAID0 doubles your chance of data failure, aka either drive fails and you probably lose everything.
Which was already stated in the article/benchmark. Real world differences are too small, maybe even worse in half of the tests. One positive is for the raw video captures like at the end of the article.
RAID 0 is useful for setups such as large read-only NFS servers where mounting many disks is time-consuming or impossible and redundancy is irrelevant.
RAID 0 is also used in some gaming systems where performance is desired and data integrity is not very important. However, real-world tests with games have shown that RAID-0 performance gains are minimal, although some desktop applications will benefit.
"We were hoping to see some sort of performance increase in the game loading tests, but the RAID array didn't give us that. While the scores put the RAID-0 array slightly slower than the single drive Raptor II, you should also remember that these scores are timed by hand and thus, we're dealing within normal variations in the "benchmark".
Our Unreal Tournament 2004 test uses the full version of the game and leaves all settings on defaults. After launching the game, we select Instant Action from the menu, choose Assault mode and select the Robot Factory level. The stop watch timer is started right after the Play button is clicked, and stopped when the loading screen disappears. The test is repeated three times with the final score reported being an average of the three. In order to avoid the effects of caching, we reboot between runs. All times are reported in seconds; lower scores, obviously, being better. In Unreal Tournament, we're left with exactly no performance improvement, thanks to RAID-0
If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.
Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth."
".....we did not see an increase in FPS through its use. Load times for levels and games was significantly reduced utilizing the Raid controller and array. As we stated we do not expect that the majority of gamers are willing to purchase greater than 4 drives and a controller for this kind of setup. While onboard Raid is an option available to many users you should be aware that using onboard Raid will mean the consumption of CPU time for this task and thus a reduction in performance that may actually lead to worse FPS. An add-on controller will always be the best option until they integrate discreet Raid controllers with their own memory into consumer level motherboards."
"However, many have tried to justify/overlook those shortcomings by simply saying "It's faster." Anyone who does this is wrong, wasting their money, and buying into hype. Nothing more."
"The real-world performance benefits possible in a single-user PC situation is not a given for most people, because the benefits rely on multiple independent, simultaneous requests. One person running most desktop applications may not see a big payback in performance because they are not written to do asynchronous I/O to disks. Understanding this can help avoid disappointment."
"What about performance? This, we suspect, is the primary reason why so many users doggedly pursue the RAID 0 "holy grail." This inevitably leads to dissapointment by those that notice little or no performance gain.....As stated above, first person shooters rarely benefit from RAID 0.__ Frame rates will almost certainly not improve, as they are determined by your video card and processor above all else. In fact, theoretically your FPS frame rate may decrease, since many low-cost RAID controllers (anything made by Highpoint at the tiem of this writing, and most cards from Promise) implement RAID in software, so the process of splitting and combining data across your drives is done by your CPU, which could better be utilized by your game. That said, the CPU overhead of RAID0 is minimal on high-performance processors."
And as far as data loss in case of failure, don't use an SSD to store you data, use a separate HDD to store any important data(I have a 2TB drive).
However it all comes to opinion, some users don't want to worry about RAID nor take the time to setup(I don't blame them either).