Best SSD out atm?

Anyone have any ideas which one is worth sinking some money into? Ive thought about waiting for the new intel but Idk..

That would require a pci-e slot, I don't have any left :(

Nice! I remember reading about trim being disabled when you raid 0. Any truth to that?

Darn, I was hoping the g3's would have raid 0 capabilities with trim support. 

How do you feel about sandforce based ssds claiming to support trim in raid 0? Are there even any decent priced/decent performers that are sandforce? 

I forgot to keep track of that topic 

sorry bout that, joly cow 3 ssds in RAID is fun ain't it, lol. just another example of how the average consumer gets scammed out of their dough sometimes, meh.

Well, Intel reigns supreme again


Edited by ablahblah - 03 Nov 2010 at 1:43am

I can speak for Velociraptor drives. I personally own one, and can honestly say that they have no realistic difference at all in performance than the 7200rpm Seagate drives I see in most business computers. Sure it might show up on a benchmark or two, but in realistic performance, no benefit. It costs more for the same performance, it's not worth it.

Cool thanks!  What about using a RAID controller like the LSI 9260-i rather than using the SATA ports?

No such thing as overkill in my world! 

I use to run 8 Intel SSD's on one rig. SSD's and RAID 0 are just a great combo.

yes it was.

You are a glutton for punishment    And a daredevil  8 SSDs in RAID 0?  One little hiccup and you lose everything.....

Have run into too many failed drives or RAID hiccups to have the time or patience for it, My hat is off to you.
 SO back on topic... are in consensus?  Intel SSD's and we all want G3's?

Edited by MagiK - 09 Nov 2010 at 3:51pm

Originally posted by MagiK Have run into too many failed drives or RAID hiccups to have the time or patience for it, My hat is off to you.  SO back on topic... are in consensus?  Intel SSD's and we all want G3's?

No issues yet, and a lot of standard drives in the past, my main PC still runs 3 WD 640 Black's, short stroked 75%. lol

Originally posted by wcboltman Cool thanks!  What about using a RAID controller like the LSI 9260-i rather than using the SATA ports?

I'm not very familiar with that card, personally. My thought on dedicated RAID cards is that they just aren't worth it unless they have a decent amount of onboard cache, or allow you to add your own cache via a memory stick, because that's about the only way to really get significantly faster than Intel's ICH10R. If you're hurting for SATA ports that is another matter, but I prefer to keep the number of drives in an array down to avoid that.

Originally posted by MagiK When you RAID 0 You also double your chances of catastrophic data failure/Loss.  I am one of those against RAID for gaming and home use, its just not worth the extra risk and hassel...but if you want to set records...what can ya do?

What hassle? In the words of the great Ron Popeil, "Set it, and forget it!" Once the array is up and running you never have to touch it again. And setting up the array in the first place (on the ICH10R anyway) is no harder than installing any single SSD or HDD. Lilim was the first time I've ever set up an array and it only took me all of 30 seconds.

The chance of failure is not a motivating deterrent here, or we wouldn't be suffing $3k+ worth of sensitive hardware in our cases that are so overclocked they would fry themselves without the aftermarket cooling we get for it all. If you're worried about data loss then don't keep anything important on the array, it should just be for OS/apps/games anyway.

Originally posted by MagiK Well I could see if you were really making any real gains but access times on the SSD's is already so low whats the point? It isnt very bang per buck beneficial (I thought Dragoon was all about economy)   Im all for going big or go home but in this case I just cannot justify RAID in my personal system......its just a personal choice I guess.

I'm all about economy/value, I like getting the most out of my money. I don't recommend getting more SSD space than needed, it is extremely expensive, but that has nothing to do with RAID.

I would never buy a 160GB SSD when I could buy two 80GB or four 40GB SSDs and RAID 0 them for the same price, and have vastly better performance. I would never buy a 80GB SSD when I could buy two 40GB SSDs and RAID 0 them for the same price, and have vastly better performance, etc. But that's just me.

Just like I would never used a non-overclocked CPU. There are downsides to overclocking, there are downsides to RAID, but both are easily compensated for.

the LSI 9260 8i is a great RAID card for SSD's. But, lol I have one, and use the Intel south bridge instead. For gaming, and most home usage the Intel ICH10 is enough.

Never mind, I don't find it interesting to nit pick

Edit: I was going to leave it at that but decided that in the interest of honesty some things needed to be said.

1. RAID 0 is risky
2. RAID 0 is the most risky form of commonly available RAID options.
3. RAID 0 with two drives has twice the chance to fail and cause data loss than a single drive configuration. (doesnt matter if it is an HDD or a SSD it is basic math)
4. RAID 0 is more complex than a Single Drive set up.

these are truths you cannot deny without losing all credibility.

and one final thing about RAID 0, 1, 0+1, 3, 5 or any integer
The average Gamer doesn't gain a lot from RAIDING non-bulk storage drives.

From here on, I will not play the game of hostile belligerence.  I want to discuss things in a friendly manner.  Fisking my posts wont accomplish anything.

Your data on throughput is theoretical not real world.  Best case scenario only.
Overclocking does not introduce MORE single points of failure.  You may want to google "Single Point Of Failure". It may not be what you think it is.


Edited by MagiK - 10 Nov 2010 at 1:10pm

I apologize for that wcboltman its a product of my birth place. 

Ok some hard facts from a Major research and development team that I can't name...

RAID 1 increases the chances of data loss and outage over stand alone drives by a small percentage, within the margins of error.

RAID 0  increased the customer's failure rates by 600%

You can assume I have no reason to lie or just assume I made those facts up, but in the professional world I work in this is the reality we work with.  This is why I avoid RAID 0. 

Just because the MoBo manufacturers put it on their products, it doesnt mean its a good idea for the mass market crowd.  A normal Consumer should be made aware of the inherent risks.

Another truth that needs to be accepted is that the average person (even technically oriented people) do not have strict data backup policies that they follow all the time. Which increases the chances of unhappy customers that much greater.....as they will not always blame them selves for not doing backups
when they think they were sold a "Safe" product.


Edited by MagiK - 10 Nov 2010 at 1:47pm