Originally posted by: bnk
Option 3 is a 750GB esata or sata drive?
What do you think?
Of course you don't!Originally posted by: bnk
Option 3 is a 750GB esata or sata drive?
What do you think?
Do I really need a seperate drive for Vista?
Originally posted by: AnandTech HD Review
Half-Life 2: Lost Coast loading times
The results speak for themselves with the RAID 0 setups offering extremely minor performance improvements in actual game load testing. You will likely not be able to notice any differences during actual game play with a RAID 0 setup. We know it was impossible for us.
BF2 Daqing Oilfields loading times
Once again we see a minimal difference between our RAID 0 and single drive configurations in this benchmark with only a one second difference in load times. In repeated testing it was difficult to discern any differences between the RAID 0 and single drive setups.
Nero Recoding
If you do a lot of video encoding then RAID 0 could end up saving you some precious minutes each day. Is it worth the cost or effort? Probably not, but it is one area besides benchmarking where RAID 0 actually made a difference. Of course, if you don't already have the fastest CPU for encoding available, that would have a far greater impact than RAID 0.
File Copying
We finish our tests with a benchmark that should have favored the RAID 0 setups due to a pure write scenario. Unlike our iPeak test (and for that matter a similar test in PCMark05) where the largest differences in scores between setups were generated, we have RAID 0 making no difference in this test and actually scoring worse than a single drive setup in two instances.
Final Thoughts
If it is not obvious by now, RAID 0 will provide outstanding results in synthetic benchmarks but really does nothing in actual applications.
RAID 0 sounds impressive in a system configuration and provides a performance placebo effect when viewing synthetic benchmarks. However, RAID 0 is just not worth the trouble or cost for the average desktop user or gamer, especially with the software RAID capabilities included on most motherboards.
Originally posted by: Blain
Of course you don't!Originally posted by: bnk
Option 3 is a 750GB esata or sata drive?
What do you think?
Do I really need a seperate drive for Vista?
* 20GB HD for Vista Home Basic
* 40GB HD for Vista Home Premium
* 40GB HD for Vista Ultimate
* 40GB HD for Vista Business
* 40GB HD for Vista Enterprise
And your point is... ?Originally posted by: bnk
Originally posted by: Blain
Of course you don't!Originally posted by: bnk
Option 3 is a 750GB esata or sata drive?
What do you think?
Do I really need a seperate drive for Vista?
* 20GB HD for Vista Home Basic
* 40GB HD for Vista Home Premium
* 40GB HD for Vista Ultimate
* 40GB HD for Vista Business
* 40GB HD for Vista Enterprise
40GB HD costs as a 250gb today...
Originally posted by: Blain
And your point is... ?Originally posted by: bnk
Originally posted by: Blain
Of course you don't!Originally posted by: bnk
Option 3 is a 750GB esata or sata drive?
What do you think?
Do I really need a seperate drive for Vista?
* 20GB HD for Vista Home Basic
* 40GB HD for Vista Home Premium
* 40GB HD for Vista Ultimate
* 40GB HD for Vista Business
* 40GB HD for Vista Enterprise
40GB HD costs as a 250gb today...
NoOriginally posted by: bnk
Originally posted by: Blain
And your point is... ?Originally posted by: bnk
Originally posted by: Blain
Of course you don't!Originally posted by: bnk
Option 3 is a 750GB esata or sata drive?
What do you think?
Do I really need a seperate drive for Vista?
* 20GB HD for Vista Home Basic
* 40GB HD for Vista Home Premium
* 40GB HD for Vista Ultimate
* 40GB HD for Vista Business
* 40GB HD for Vista Enterprise
40GB HD costs as a 250gb today...
Oh, Sorry. That if I need a 40GB HD for Vista, it is like buying a 250GB 9or even 500GB, the price difference is minor).
What I meant is whether a seperate HD for vista will make a performance change?