Couple performance questions before i buy...Post Date: 2007-10-18 |
Post Reply 
|
| Author | |
hawkeyye 
Newbie 
Joined: 16 Oct 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Couple performance questions before i buy...Posted: 18 Oct 2007 at 12:58am |
|
Two issues im still trying to work out.
1st- memory. How much difference is there between the 800 mhz ram (looking to get 2 gig corsair) and the 1066 mhz ram? Is it worth the extra 120.00?
2nd - hard drives. single? or double in a raid zero? About 100.00 to 150.00 for the second drive.
Not made of money, id like to hear that i wouldnt notice either, and save my dough. And if you had to pick one, which would give more improvement?
thanks
|
|
 |
|
|
commast
Senior Member 
Joined: 11 Oct 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 262 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Oct 2007 at 3:17am |
|
(1) Most people will be happy with the 800 Mhz RAM especially is game
is your concern. The 1066 Mhz RAM won't increase your frame rates since
frame rates depends on how fast your video card is, but it will give your
system a better overall performance. Whether or not it's worth it or not, you decide.
(2) Raid 0 is faster than any single hard drive, even a Raptor.  Edited by commast - 18 Oct 2007 at 3:22am |
|
|
|
|
thecomplex
Senior Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 230 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Oct 2007 at 8:51am |
|
True that the GPU is arguably the most important contributor to frame rates, but won't frame rates be somewhat affected by everything? GPU, CPU, RAM, etc?
Chris |
|
|
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 @ 3.52GHz
4GB DDR2 Corsair 1066MHz Dominator (2) 150GB WD Raptor (10K RPM) (1) 120GB Maxtor (7200RPM) nVidia GeForce 8800GTX 768MB Vista Home Premium 64 |
|
|
|
|
Bill the Cat
DS Veteran 
Forum Bitch!
Joined: 27 Aug 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1150 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Oct 2007 at 9:00am |
|
Commast is, of course, correct. I don't believe that even 800 MHz memory is really necessary unless your machine's FSB is overclocked. I'd still recommend it though just to keep your options open.
RAID0 setups are faster than a single drive, but apparently only about 25% - 33% faster because of less than perfect RAID controller implementations. If you're on a budget, a single Raptor should make you happy, but I would recommend a second bigger Caviar type drive for music, pictures and video. Save the Raptor for the OS and applications.
Thecomplex, there always has to be just a single bottleneck in the system at any given time. One weakest link in the chain as it were. Edited by Bill the Cat - 18 Oct 2007 at 9:02am |
|
|
|
|
tallpaul
Newbie
Joined: 16 Oct 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Oct 2007 at 10:57am |
|
Hawkeye I agree with Bill for your purposes. Even if a single Raptor costs almost as much as a large raid 0 array, with raid 0 you are increasing your chance of hard drive failure. Single Raptors are very reliable, by most accounts. You could always add a couple of sata drives in raid 0 for cheap later on, if you needed more space and/or speed.
And you only need the super fast RAM if you plan on overclocking heavily later on, or want to at least allow for it. Edited by tallpaul - 18 Oct 2007 at 10:58am |
|
|
|
|
Tyler Lowe
Newbie
Joined: 14 May 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Oct 2007 at 11:35am |
|
Second 7200 Drive in RAID 0 will be cheaper, provide similar performance, and give you more storage. Read/write performance will actually be better than a single WD Raptor. 2*160GB 7200RPM drives is 320GB of storage. Unless you plan on storing alot of HUGE media files, that'll probably do nicely. IMO, go RAID, and 800 Mhz RAM. If I had only a little bit more in my budget, 7200RPM's in RAID 0 would be the next thing added over anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
commast
Senior Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 262 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Oct 2007 at 4:31pm |
|
With the Raid 0, the chance of HDD failure is the same with any other hard drive -- no more no less. The only difference is that if one hard drive fails you are going loose your data since all the datas is stored on all hard drives on the array. Just put in a new drive, format and re-install. I've never had a hard drive failed on me (since the 90's) yet so it's not an issue for me and i usually do a fresh clean install every year anyway. A single Raptor drive, with less capacity, cost more than a Raid 0 not to mention than the Raid 0 is faster
Edited by commast - 18 Oct 2007 at 6:50pm |
|
|
|
|
Bigdog
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Nov 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 450 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Oct 2007 at 5:35pm |
|
yea but isn't 2 raptor drives in a raid 0 faster then 2 7200rpm drives?
Edited by Bigdog - 18 Oct 2007 at 5:35pm |
|
|
Processor: QX6850 (3.3Ghz)
RAM: 4GB 1066 Dominators Graphics: 2x 8800GTX 768MB Sound Card: Fatal1ty HDD 1: 2x 150GB raptor (RAID 0) HDD 2: 1x 150GB raptor HDD 3: 320GB western Liquid cooling (red) |
|
|
|
|
nomec
Senior Member
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 530 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Oct 2007 at 5:42pm |
|
yes... but two 7200rpm drives in RAID 0 is faster than a single raptor
|
|
|
|
|
Bill the Cat
DS Veteran
Forum Bitch!
Joined: 27 Aug 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1150 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Oct 2007 at 8:08pm |
Commast, old buddy, I've got to take exception to a couple of you points. It's true that the chance of a particular drive failure in a RAID array is the same as that single drive by itself, but the chance of a system failure is two or more times greater, depending on how many drives are involved. I think you're saying the same thing; it's a question of emphasis. You are roughly twice as likely to lose everything on a pair of 75 Gig Raptors in a RAID0 as you are with one 150 Raptor running alone.
My first Raptor croaked after running just 380 hours. "Stuff" does happen. I've lost quite a few drives over the last 30 years; usually to software disasters rather than hardware failures, but the result is the same.
I'm no expert, but the big deal about Raptors compared to other bargin drives is not their throughput. Raptors do deliver slightly higher sustained data rates, but their claim to fame is quicker random access. I'm guessing RAID0s don't have better access times than Raptors but may well have better sustained data rates. The question is which is more important. That almost certainly depends on what you're doing, but refer to the review below that tested a range of applications.
Then go to the Device Manager and find the SATA controllers that are connected you your drives. There's a built in performance test.
According to XP, the 500 Gig Western Digital Drive has a sustained throughput of 81.5 Megabytes/sec. The Raptor has a sustained throughput of only 86.5 Megabytes/sec. Yet, according to the above review, the Raptor is hot stuff. Edited by Bill the Cat - 18 Oct 2007 at 9:04pm |
|
|
|
|
commast
Senior Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 262 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Oct 2007 at 9:23pm |
|
Good points there, Bill Hardware can fails but that's why we have backup
 Everybody has different uses for their PC -there's really no right or wrong configuration but if you want performance then Raid 0 is the way to go. That's my opinion anyway
 Edited by commast - 18 Oct 2007 at 9:47pm |
|
|
|
|
Bill the Cat
DS Veteran
Forum Bitch!
Joined: 27 Aug 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1150 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Oct 2007 at 9:46pm |
|
I admit I don't know nothin about any of this for sure. I've had a lot of second thoughts about getting a Raptor. I'm pretty sure whether a Raptor is worth it or not depends on what you're doing. After looking at the Tom's article, I have to conceed that you're more right than I am. Still, personally, I woundn't put my OS on a RAID.
Edit:
Of more interest for us here, Tom's points out that the 680i chip set doesn't implement RAID0 very well; at least I think that's what they said. Edited by Bill the Cat - 18 Oct 2007 at 10:08pm |
|
|
|
|
commast
Senior Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 262 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Oct 2007 at 9:55pm |
Yes, i understand. It's a bit of a gamble to put the OS on the Raid 0. Most the time you won't see the performance gain from either a Raptor, Raid 0 vs a normal 7200rpm HDD anyway
 I chose the raid 0 for my pc because i tends to work with large files and i want the speed but don't want to spend too much  Edited by commast - 18 Oct 2007 at 9:57pm |
|
|
|
|
tallpaul
Newbie
Joined: 16 Oct 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 Oct 2007 at 2:20pm |
|
Well, two 150gb Raptors in RAID 0 will be the best performance. That's what I've got coming, but this guy's original question made cost an issue, and also note he did not mention needing a lot of space, so that's why I still say single Raptor - for him.
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum |
About Digital Storm
Contact Information
Facility Tour
Financing
Buy Now, Pay Later
Downloads
GSA Schedule
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Request Help
Call: 1-866-817-8676
(Hours 9AM-5PM PST)
Topic Options