Raid 0 does not help gaming

ericdrum · Sep 15, 2004, 09:17 PM

Raid 0 will not improve your gaming experience with faster map load times. This has been discussed in the past, but I saw Maximum PC do a definitive review on it. They found that in gaming, load times were much more correlated to a higher CPU. The compared a Raid array to a single drive with Doom3, FarCry and BF1942. The Raid array for Doom3 loaded in 38, the single drive loaded in 35. Raid on FC was 21 and Single Drive was 21. BF42 under the array was 22 and single drive was 22. They substantiated that Raid 0 still serves a purpose with file transfers and video editing and such. But with improving gaming, it doesn't do anything and sometimes make it worse. Check out the October issue of Maximum PC for the full skinny on it. I found this quite interesting as I was definitely considering it on my next rig.

Zelig · Sep 15, 2004, 09:32 PM

I've been telling people that RAID 0 is next to useless for gaming, but in most cases, it does improve loading times by a few seconds... not that I think it's worth it.

Shinjikun · Sep 15, 2004, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericdrum

Raid 0 will not improve your gaming experience with faster map load times. This has been discussed in the past, but I saw Maximum PC do a definitive review on it. They found that in gaming, load times were much more correlated to a higher CPU. The compared a Raid array to a single drive with Doom3, FarCry and BF1942. The Raid array for Doom3 loaded in 38, the single drive loaded in 35. Raid on FC was 21 and Single Drive was 21. BF42 under the array was 22 and single drive was 22. They substantiated that Raid 0 still serves a purpose with file transfers and video editing and such. But with improving gaming, it doesn't do anything and sometimes make it worse. Check out the October issue of Maximum PC for the full skinny on it. I found this quite interesting as I was definitely considering it on my next rig.

What about two Raptors on a RAID-0?

Nacht · Sep 15, 2004, 09:53 PM

no, two raptors arent noticably faster. raid 0 isnt even that much faster in raw speed HDD benchmarks...one website did a similar "review"...i think it was anandtech?

Shinjikun · Sep 15, 2004, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacht

no, two raptors arent noticably faster. raid 0 isnt even that much faster in raw speed HDD benchmarks...one website did a similar "review"...i think it was anandtech?

You're right it was Anandtech.

ericdrum · Sep 15, 2004, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zelig

I've been telling people that RAID 0 is next to useless for gaming, but in most cases, it does improve loading times by a few seconds... not that I think it's worth it.

The price/performance ratio just doesn't work for me. Serial ATA drives with decent compacity aren't exactly cheap. One of the points made about pc game load times was that most of the time spent loading (or rather the most laborious part) was in decompressing levels, textures and sounds.

Judas · Sep 16, 2004, 04:30 AM

erm... default setting of a raid 0 with a block/stripe length of anything below 128kb results in nearly no improvments at all.... however i personally have tested this through a few different variations of the HighPoint Technology onboard controlls..... and i DO see improvements not only in load times but less stuttering on ram limited machines....

Any decent raid controller won't use up any more CPU time then any normal controller.... enless it's a software makeup in which case.... not worth using at all imo...

mike2h · Sep 17, 2004, 06:40 PM

both anandtech & storage review of done extensive tests showing that raid 0 is of little or no use for home desktops. throw in cost & a higher chance of losing your data(think that is a minor issue myself) & it just does not make that much sense.
i have 2 40 gig hd in a raid 0 setup('extra' drives) on my wifes comp. thought maybe it would make a diifference in time backing up my dvds. if it does, i have not been able to tell. luckily i am only out the cost of the controller as i already had the drives.

swimtech · Sep 17, 2004, 07:07 PM

The WD Raptor drives are just plain fast, period, raid configured or not.

Judas is doing things with his raid setup that few would bother with.

For large file transfers, the throughput over time (read and/or write functions, depending on striping/mirroring setup) of a raid array will be faster. Games just don't use files in the size necessary (at present - it could change in the future) for long enough for us slow humans to "feel" the difference.

mike2h · Sep 17, 2004, 07:23 PM

the problem most people do not take into account with raid when using add on cards is you are limited to whatever the pci bus can give you. now with slower hd(like my twin 40s from above) this not an issue. with the newer faster hds this could be an issue.
the ONLY time raid0 pays off is in a server enviro &/or you are moving lots of very large files all the time.
you got that right about the raptors! got a new 36 gig sitting next to a 'cuda 160 right here on my desk. the raptor will be my 'c' drive.

OpusP.Gladiator · Sep 17, 2004, 07:44 PM

Haven't played around with the raid stuff too much.... but do have 2 36gig raptors in raid 0 w/64k stripe.... HDTach read my I/O avg around 108mg/s but do agree with the large file issues...
Now I move my movies around alot so it does help If I transfer 5 or 10gigs around... I mean I built this system because apps were finally snapping in place fast enough for my likes, I Despise Long load/work times on a system...why do I wanna waste my time waiting for a piece o shi* software to tell ME to wait..oh no, not gonna happen if I can prevent it....
Playin ut2004 my load times are relatively fast lately but agree that any improvements made by raiding are impercetible!!!!

Am curious why specs of the drive/sata all say up to 150mg/s yet very few ever truly reach this kinda performance... or so it seems? lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimtech

The WD Raptor drives are just plain fast, period, raid configured or not.

Judas is doing things with his raid setup that few would bother with.

For large file transfers, the throughput over time (read and/or write functions, depending on striping/mirroring setup) of a raid array will be faster. Games just don't use files in the size necessary (at present - it could change in the future) for long enough for us slow humans to "feel" the difference.

Zelig · Sep 17, 2004, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpusP.Gladiator

Am curious why specs of the drive/sata all say up to 150mg/s yet very few ever truly reach this kinda performance... or so it seems? lol

The sata interface supports up to 150 MB/s.

It's better to have the interface support higher than any drives get, than drives being bottlenecked by the interface.

>GSXR<mrbusa · Sep 17, 2004, 09:57 PM

hello all,i myself just started useing a raid-0 array with 2 sata 160gb cudas and found that there is really no performance increase for anything i do.i also have had a few wierd things happening with older games that might be from the intel app acc raid drivers.its a little better with the new 4.5 drivers,but i cant figure out how to make a floppy from this version,so i have to use the 4.1 floppy utility and then install the 4.5 exe after xp installs.but you do get a 11mps increase in throughput with the 4.5's,atleast i did,went from 82mps to 93mps,really dont notice a difference.i will still probably keep this setup until i need to reformate or something,with the way sp2 is acting that might not be to long,lol. later

ps:does anybody know if running a retail drive with an oem drive with raid will cause any probs.the firmware is different between the drives,but i cant find any updates on seagates site?thx

CrapolaJola · Sep 17, 2004, 11:23 PM

ericdrum SATA drives aren't spendy at all, unless you get the 10k RPM ones. Last I checked the hitachi 160GB 7200rpm 8mb cache sata drive i was gonna buy was about $95 on newegg. I don't think thast too spendy at all

ericdrum · Sep 17, 2004, 11:49 PM

I was talking about the 10,000 RPM ones. We'll see how prices are in March (when I plan to buy), but I was thinking of getting just one SATA 10000 RPM drive. I want a decent capacity though. We'll see what happens.

mike2h · Sep 18, 2004, 12:16 AM

approx $110 for wd36 & $170 for wd72.

Sep 15, 2004, 09:17 PM	#1
ericdrum DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The SLC Posts: 149 Rep Power: 0	Raid 0 does not help gaming Raid 0 will not improve your gaming experience with faster map load times. This has been discussed in the past, but I saw Maximum PC do a definitive review on it. They found that in gaming, load times were much more correlated to a higher CPU. The compared a Raid array to a single drive with Doom3, FarCry and BF1942. The Raid array for Doom3 loaded in 38, the single drive loaded in 35. Raid on FC was 21 and Single Drive was 21. BF42 under the array was 22 and single drive was 22. They substantiated that Raid 0 still serves a purpose with file transfers and video editing and such. But with improving gaming, it doesn't do anything and sometimes make it worse. Check out the October issue of Maximum PC for the full skinny on it. I found this quite interesting as I was definitely considering it on my next rig. __________________ AMD Athlon 64 3500+ MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum nForce3 Ultra 2 gig Corsair XMS 3200 eVGA 6800 GT SB Audigy2 w/ KX Project Drivers 2-80 gig Western Digital SATA 7200 RAID 0 200 GB Seagate Barricuda 7200 for Storage Ultra Xconnect 500W Power Supply Windows XP SP2 Antec P160W case

Sep 17, 2004, 06:40 PM	#8
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 89 System Specs	both anandtech & storage review of done extensive tests showing that raid 0 is of little or no use for home desktops. throw in cost & a higher chance of losing your data(think that is a minor issue myself) & it just does not make that much sense. i have 2 40 gig hd in a raid 0 setup('extra' drives) on my wifes comp. thought maybe it would make a diifference in time backing up my dvds. if it does, i have not been able to tell. luckily i am only out the cost of the controller as i already had the drives. __________________

Sep 17, 2004, 07:07 PM	#9
swimtech HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,040 Rep Power: 122 System Specs	The WD Raptor drives are just plain fast, period, raid configured or not. Judas is doing things with his raid setup that few would bother with. For large file transfers, the throughput over time (read and/or write functions, depending on striping/mirroring setup) of a raid array will be faster. Games just don't use files in the size necessary (at present - it could change in the future) for long enough for us slow humans to "feel" the difference. __________________ It's not so much getting your way that matters or not - what matters is how you go about getting it.

Sep 17, 2004, 07:23 PM	#10
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 89 System Specs	the problem most people do not take into account with raid when using add on cards is you are limited to whatever the pci bus can give you. now with slower hd(like my twin 40s from above) this not an issue. with the newer faster hds this could be an issue. the ONLY time raid0 pays off is in a server enviro &/or you are moving lots of very large files all the time. you got that right about the raptors! got a new 36 gig sitting next to a 'cuda 160 right here on my desk. the raptor will be my 'c' drive. __________________

Sep 17, 2004, 11:23 PM	#14
CrapolaJola The Great DaK Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 317 Rep Power: 0	ericdrum SATA drives aren't spendy at all, unless you get the 10k RPM ones. Last I checked the hitachi 160GB 7200rpm 8mb cache sata drive i was gonna buy was about $95 on newegg. I don't think thast too spendy at all __________________ P2 X4 @ 3.6ghz, 4gb ddr3, SSD, 5870 @ 950/1250 + a 3ghz i5 lappy

Sep 15, 2004, 09:32 PM	#2
Zelig HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 3,187 Rep Power: 69 System Specs	I've been telling people that RAID 0 is next to useless for gaming, but in most cases, it does improve loading times by a few seconds... not that I think it's worth it.

Sep 15, 2004, 09:53 PM	#4
Nacht ein Krieger Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Clemson Uni Posts: 3,127 Rep Power: 0	no, two raptors arent noticably faster. raid 0 isnt even that much faster in raw speed HDD benchmarks...one website did a similar "review"...i think it was anandtech?

Sep 17, 2004, 09:57 PM	#13
>GSXR<mrbusa im a FREAK Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 2,107 Rep Power: 55 System Specs	hello all,i myself just started useing a raid-0 array with 2 sata 160gb cudas and found that there is really no performance increase for anything i do.i also have had a few wierd things happening with older games that might be from the intel app acc raid drivers.its a little better with the new 4.5 drivers,but i cant figure out how to make a floppy from this version,so i have to use the 4.1 floppy utility and then install the 4.5 exe after xp installs.but you do get a 11mps increase in throughput with the 4.5's,atleast i did,went from 82mps to 93mps,really dont notice a difference.i will still probably keep this setup until i need to reformate or something,with the way sp2 is acting that might not be to long,lol. later ps:does anybody know if running a retail drive with an oem drive with raid will cause any probs.the firmware is different between the drives,but i cant find any updates on seagates site?thx

Sep 17, 2004, 11:49 PM	Thread Starter #15
ericdrum DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The SLC Posts: 149 Rep Power: 0	I was talking about the 10,000 RPM ones. We'll see how prices are in March (when I plan to buy), but I was thinking of getting just one SATA 10000 RPM drive. I want a decent capacity though. We'll see what happens. __________________ AMD Athlon 64 3500+ MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum nForce3 Ultra 2 gig Corsair XMS 3200 eVGA 6800 GT SB Audigy2 w/ KX Project Drivers 2-80 gig Western Digital SATA 7200 RAID 0 200 GB Seagate Barricuda 7200 for Storage Ultra Xconnect 500W Power Supply Windows XP SP2 Antec P160W case

Sep 18, 2004, 12:16 AM	#16
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 89 System Specs	approx $110 for wd36 & $170 for wd72. __________________