• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

lower game map load time: 74gb Raptor or 7200rmp drives in Raid 0

I haven't seen many flame wars over raptors nor do I own one. From what I know about raid the raptor would probably be better as all the benchmarks that I've seen seem to indicate that performance benefits from a raid array of 2 slower drives are negligible when compared to the performance of a high RPM drive. I'll try to dig up the reviews if you wish, the main one I'm thinking about was done right here on AT IIRC.
 
how much memory do you have?
If less than 2Gb upgrade to 2Gb first. Which games are you experiencing slow loadtimes with?
 
Raptor. It was pretty big news a while back when people woke up and realized raid didn't actually help gaming at all. The raptor will give you more performance. I personally have the Raptor and 2GB of RAM, just to make sure I get the fastest load time possible.
 
Personally, I would say go with a large (300GB+) sata HDD with a 16MB cache. The dense platters of a high capacity drives can make the speed increase of a raptor almost negligible.

RoD
 
I would say if you keep your hard drive defraged then the RAID 0 setup will probably do better. It depends on how large these files are that you are loading also. If it is one huge file, like a map for Unreal Tournament, then I would say RAID 0. But if it's a whole bunch of little files scattered everywhere, then the Raptor will have better seek times.

Also, some of the newer 16MB cache 7200RPM drives have some pretty good performance vs. the older 8MB Raptors. They are not as fast, but they close the gap in some benchmarks.
 
Raptor, but they really aren't worth it; neither is RAID-0.

As was mentioned, a larger newer HDD is almost as fast, & it'll be much better in price/performance terms.
 
Originally posted by: ribbon13
Seriously get the WD4000KD if you care about level times in your price range.

^

(I use a raptor 74 in my computer, but doing it all again i'd go for the WD4000KD)
 
Yeah I would say go with the Raptor or the WD4000KD over the Raid setup. My guess would be the Raid setup would be as fast for map loading as 1 74G Raptor but the Raptor would be faster for everyday activities. If you do go with the Raptor you may want to wait for a little while as a new 74GB version with 16MB cache and a denser platter is coming very soon! Priced the same.

Now you may want to go the single Raptor route now, then you could add another in Raid 0 later when funds permit for screaming fast load times!!

Edit- if you are really after the best load times- no matter what HD you end up getting- leave Windows on a seperate HD and install BF2 FIRST (and only?) onto the new HD. You may not notice a big difference with this but- 1 second load time shaved off is 1 second shaved off.
 
I haven't ever seen a Raptor in action, but I do know from personal experience that load times for the following are nearly IDENTICAL (I've owned and set up all three):

40gb 7200rpm IDE
2x80gb 7200RPM SATA1 in raid0
7200rpm 160gb SATAII
--All drives were WD

I'm a performance nut and moving between the three options above has never affected windows load time or game load time or any load time whatsoever. The only difference was that WinXP installed about 50% faster in RAID0 than in a single configuration. This leads me to believe that RAID0 is ONLY faster in certain situations, such as writing large amounts of data or maybe some other functions that don't relate to any of the functions I perform on a PC. I'm sure that the raid0 setup performs better in some benchmark utility, but I don't really care about that given that I only use my rig for gaming.

Therefore, I'm looking forward to buying a raptor 74gb at some point down the line so that I can maybe increase OS and game load times. From the benchmarks I've read (yes, here at anand) the raptor is pretty clearly superior to any other non-SCSI drive that you can buy. I understand that it's expensive and the temptation is to start to berate so-called fanboys for liking this drive, but anybody who argues that these drives aren't faster than any other non-SCSI solution you can get is neglecting their research. They're just a poor price-point is all.

My $.02.

 
Here's a very telling example of how little Raid 0 helps game load times. In this review the comparison is between a single WD raptor and 2 Raptors in a raid 0 array. Notice that in one instance the single raptor actually beats the 2 raptors in raid 0. I think if you want to improve game load times the raid 0 is DEFINITELY not your answer. Go with a high performance single drive like a raptor or the WD4000KD mentioned above.

Benchies
 
Uhm, you're not going to like this answer... the answer is...

Yes!

In other words, both are best. The Raptors and the RAID.
 
But of course, if you have to choose, it will be RAID over Raptor. So why do I say both?

Well, there's more to drive performance than map load time. What about playing online where you may be dealing with skin downloads from other players? Also, there are some things that regardless of how you do it, Cousin Billy's programming simply won't hold the information in RAM and as a result, I still say both!
 
Originally posted by: the Chase
Or here is one (a lot more recent) showing pretty dramatic improvements in load times- http://www.overclockers.com/articles1297/index03.asp

Wow that article has a much more comprehensive battery of tests than the AT article. What could cause the disparity between the Anand's findings and overclockers.com regarding game load times? I trust Anand's methodology and overclockers.com seems to be using similar methods.

Perhaps improved Raid drivers since Anand article are the reason?
 
15K u320 owns all. The raptor was intended to bring the SCSI performance to a lower price point. If you have 300$, get a nice 15K drive, and Egg has several controller cards for ~100$.
 
Originally posted by: Luckyboy1
But of course, if you have to choose, it will be RAID over Raptor. So why do I say both?

Well, there's more to drive performance than map load time. What about playing online where you may be dealing with skin downloads from other players? Also, there are some things that regardless of how you do it, Cousin Billy's programming simply won't hold the information in RAM and as a result, I still say both!

This may be a slightly unrelated question- but do you(or anyone) know what the slowdowns or "freezes" are caused by when playing a game and the computer is accessing the HD?

I realize the slowdown is caused buy the actual writing(or reading) to/from the HD, but what is it writing or reading excatly? Seems to be really bad at the start of the game and continually smooths out the longer you play the same map and then happens all over again on a new map. Still loading textures to memory or?
 
Originally posted by: the Chase
Originally posted by: Luckyboy1
But of course, if you have to choose, it will be RAID over Raptor. So why do I say both?

Well, there's more to drive performance than map load time. What about playing online where you may be dealing with skin downloads from other players? Also, there are some things that regardless of how you do it, Cousin Billy's programming simply won't hold the information in RAM and as a result, I still say both!

This may be a slightly unrelated question- but do you(or anyone) know what the slowdowns or "freezes" are caused by when playing a game and the computer is accessing the HD?

I realize the slowdown is caused buy the actual writing(or reading) to/from the HD, but what is it writing or reading excatly? Seems to be really bad at the start of the game and continually smooths out the longer you play the same map and then happens all over again on a new map. Still loading textures to memory or?


I'm very tired and as a result, the last few posts by me have been complete bonkers! Not so much in this thread, but I wanted to warn you because I may make a mistep here and really need to hit the sack! Dealing with all these sick people at my job has drained me apparently!

Anyways, to your question and I think the question is that infamous stutter you get and in most cases, you reduce it best by making sure you have first stripped all the stems and seeds that you don't need as afar as processes that Cousin Billy has running by default that not only hog RAM and CPU cycles just idling there, but can cause security concerns in some cases as well. then you will want to make sure you are not running applications you are not using at the moment. Keeping a browser open or a IM service at hand when not needed will eat up available RAM as well. See, if there is not enough RAM to run all the processes at once, it dumps it to the hard drive in something called the page file. Comparatively, going to and from the page file is much slower than having it sit in RAM. However, there are some things that Cousin Billy's and other programs do that are going to dump to the page file or other files as well regardless of how much RAM you have so I NEVER advise turning the page file off. I most often advise leaving it in system managed and that's MicroSoft's advice as well. I personally use a large, static page file of 3000 initial and 3000 final and that only gives me a slight and rare advantage over system managed when and if ever the system managed style decides to resize your page file. Also, the large and static page file tends to fragment slower and I'm not sure why, but even this is not muuch of a concern as page files generally fragment at a prettty slow pace compared to other files.

I would strongly suggest having Diskeeper Pro. Unlike Cousin Billy's defragmenter, it is ultra fast and also will degfrag the page file while it's at it and Cousin Billy's won't. Set it up so it can monitor things for about a day of real life use and then after that, disable the function until you substantially change something. This way, the active monitoring won't slow you down. It will give you improved performance and make your drives theoretically last longer due to not having to search as much for files.

Having at least a Gig of RAM is essential these days and in many applications, two Gigs is now desired and best. You want all the RAM to be of the same size and speed and prefferably brand and model RAM. Getting those "matched sets" are of little benefit if any for most. All the RAM should be of the same size and on two cards.
 
Originally posted by: Luckyboy1
Someone please check my response!

More or less accurate, although the first sentence in that second paragraph is both a really bad run-on sentence and nearly incomprehensible. 😛 If you're seeing hard disk access and 'stuttering' in games while they are running (and not doing something that should 'obviously' access the hard drive, like loading a new map), either you are hitting the swapfile, or some background task is stealing CPU time.

"the Chase": to see if you are running out of physical RAM and hitting your swapfile, open up Task Manager (ctrl-alt-del, choose "Task Manager") after running a game and look at your 'Commit Charge' numbers. This is the total amount of memory allocated by everything in your system (including the OS, drivers, etc.)

If the 'Peak' commit charge value is higher than the amount of physical RAM you have, you were hitting the swapfile at some point. Install more RAM or run less stuff at once.
 
Back
Top