Originally posted by: HendrixFan
RAID works best for sustained throughput, loading a map in a game will have a small difference because you are talking seconds gained, nothing more.
RAID will be a little better for general OS tasks as well, but again, not a big difference. I use my RAID setup for audio and video editting, and I see big time improvements, though the gains for games are small.
I agree to some extent, the biggest gains you will see are for things like media editing and manipulation (time shifting, PVR functions etc.) or running a server, however, I have seen substantial differences in performance in games, particularly BF 1942. That game is a memory hog, so it easily flows into your swap file if you don't have a gig of RAM.....RAID really helps in that situation and when loading maps. Its definitely not as noticeable though in older games, BF 1942 is one of the most intensive apps I run, period. Also, I have no need for 240GB on 2 separate partitions, and a redundant mirrored array is pointless for what I do as there's nothing I do on my home PC that is "mission critical" or for work (done on my ThinkPad). My current set-up is ~160GB as my main OS and app partition, with an 80GB partition for unique data files on my RAID 0 array. I have a "mirrored" 80GB Maxtor 8MB Cache Ultra to back-up periodically to, and I save seldomly used files like driver updates and downloaded installation files to.
PC performance in the last year has generally been pretty stagnant; There hasn't been any earth-shattering advancements in the desktop PC market, just incremental clock increases. I've found for some time that the ONLY times I wait on my system are when my CPU is waiting for data from input devices like my optical and IDE drives. Even a 15% increase in access or load times is more signifcant than a 15% overclock IMO......
Chiz