Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 43

Thread: Which is faster? ide raid0 or single sata?

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Which is faster? ide raid0 or single sata?

    Hi everyone.

    I was wondering, which is faster:

    a) 2 IDE100 ,8 mb cache, 7200 rpm, hard drives in Raid0 (via a PCI IDE Raid card), or
    b) 1 single SATA 150, 7200 rpm, 8 mb cache drive on its own?

    Thanks!!

  2. #2
    HEXUS webmaster Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    14,269
    Thanks
    286
    Thanked
    829 times in 469 posts
    • Steve's system
      • CPU:
      • Intel i3-350M 2.27GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GiB Crucial DDR3
      • Storage:
      • 320GB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD3000
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 11.10
    RAID will be faster.
    PHP Code:
    $s = new signature();
    $s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display(); 

  3. #3
    Nox
    Nox is offline
    Vorsprung durch Technik
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    2,023
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    • Nox's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Yes
      • CPU:
      • Yes
      • Memory:
      • Yes
      • Storage:
      • Yes
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Yes
      • PSU:
      • Yes
      • Case:
      • Yes
      • Monitor(s):
      • Yes
      • Internet:
      • Yes
    Realistically, you probably wouldn't notice much difference. RAID only really makes the benchmark progs give faster benchmarks, and about a 10% speed increase in everyday tasks

    Oh, and how old are the IDE drives, you talking UDMA or what?? Even the raptors aren't as great as they used to be, compared to other drives

    Nox

  4. #4
    not posting kempez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Basingstoke
    Posts
    3,204
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    RAID 0 make a difference IMO...my RAID drives are very fast and I notice the difference in load times when I play games
    Check my project <<| Black3D |>>
    Quote Originally Posted by hexah
    Games are developed by teams of talented people and sometimes electronic arts

  5. #5
    Ah, Mrs. Peel! mike_w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hertfordshire, England
    Posts
    3,326
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    9 times in 7 posts
    Don't forget that normal drives aren't limited by the speed of ATA133, so having SATA (which is 150MB/s) doesn't increase the speed of the drive (unless you have NCQ on both the drive and the motherboard). I don't think drives are even limited by ATA100 yet, but SATA can bring other benefits.

    Personally, I would go with a SATA drive unless you were doing some HDD intensive work since the risk of data loss and relatively small performance gain aren't worth it to me.
    "Well, there was your Uncle Tiberius who died wrapped in cabbage leaves but we assumed that was a freak accident."

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Gracias muchachos,
    I guess Raid0 is indeed faster, but not really worth the risk and the hassle. Thanks for the info!

  7. #7
    Senior Amoeba iranu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    On the dinner table. Blechh!
    Posts
    3,532
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked
    156 times in 106 posts
    • iranu's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus Gene VI
      • CPU:
      • 4670K @4.3Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 8Gb Samsung Green
      • Storage:
      • 1x 256Gb Samsung 830 SSD 2x640gb HGST raid 0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI R9 390
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX620W Modular
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master Silencio 352
      • Operating System:
      • Win 7 ultimate 64 bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • 23" DELL Ultrasharp U2312HM
      • Internet:
      • 16mb broadband
    1 single sata will use only a thin cable whereas even with round ide cables you will have a bit more mess. cleaner case = better cooling.
    "Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.

  8. #8
    Senior Member specofdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    794
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kempez815
    RAID 0 make a difference IMO...my RAID drives are very fast and I notice the difference in load times when I play games
    Ever heard the word Placebo?

    I would be extremely surprised if you took one of those drives out of the RAID, shoved the same games on it, measured game load times and it made any difference. There are so few games it could make a difference to(baulders gate being the only one that comes to mind) that its highly unlikely there is any real difference. In fact, some RAID0 tests I've noticed actually increased loading times marginally because of the extra stuff that was going on.

    RAID 0 isn't so much faster, its more extra bandwidth then speed per se. Games don't need high bandwidth, they need high speed, which is why Raptors are what you want for games, no RAID 0, which is effectively useless.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Nemeliza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,719
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    5 times in 5 posts
    RAID0 is faster.

    you will notice a difference

    whether its worth the effort or not........up to you to decide.

  10. #10
    Filthy old man noTHINGface's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Herts
    Posts
    1,397
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked
    21 times in 20 posts
    Raid0 is faster but I have to agree with specofdust above you wont really notice any real world difference (unless you explicitly look for it) and is indeed more hassle.
    What we share with everyone is glum, and dark...

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,561
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    244 times in 206 posts
    RAID-0 will be noticeably faster for certain tasks such as loading up Windows XP and sequential transfer benchmarks, and other applications which relies heavily on sequential read/write (video editing etc). For games, it is a lot more negligeable (well, not tried with the latest).

    Personally, I am not bothered with it, I prefer to use extra drives for backup purpose. Recovering from a dead drive is a far more annoying process than waiting an extra 2 seconds of loading a game IMO (or extra 5 sec for booting Windows).

    Oh yea, I would go SATA for the cables. I can't stand IDE cables now, and frankly I would like optical drives to go SATA too (of course, it would also mean that mobo will all need to have more SATA connectors).

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,898
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked
    179 times in 134 posts
    • Butcher's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 3
      • CPU:
      • i7-4790K
      • Memory:
      • 8 GB Corsair 1866 MHz
      • Storage:
      • 120GB SSD, 240GB SSD, 2TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650W
      • Case:
      • Big Black Cube!
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_w
    Don't forget that normal drives aren't limited by the speed of ATA133, so having SATA (which is 150MB/s) doesn't increase the speed of the drive (unless you have NCQ on both the drive and the motherboard). I don't think drives are even limited by ATA100 yet, but SATA can bring other benefits.
    Only makes a difference for buffered transfers. The fastest SCSI disks can only just reach 100mb/s flat out, anything IDE/SATA isn't even close.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Minehead, Somerset.
    Posts
    197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    RAID -2 hard drive controller sets, 2 sets of cache. SATA150 doesnt have that much performance over high end IDE drives, but when 250 is brought in as standard on hard drive controller boards, then yes there would be a significant performance boost.

    The only other advantage I can think of is smaller cables heh

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,561
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    244 times in 206 posts
    Actually, I doubt that any drive, SCSI or otherwise is capable of 100MB yet. They are -getting- there, but not et.

    Mind ya, one of the problem with IDE is that the bandwidth is shared with two drives. ATA100 won't limit one drive, but will limit two top of the end 7.2k IDE drive... If you are transfering from one drive to another anyway.
    (Ideally, you wouldn't have them in the same channel, but sometime you just need to for cabling reason, or other).

  15. #15
    Nox
    Nox is offline
    Vorsprung durch Technik
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    2,023
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    • Nox's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Yes
      • CPU:
      • Yes
      • Memory:
      • Yes
      • Storage:
      • Yes
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Yes
      • PSU:
      • Yes
      • Case:
      • Yes
      • Monitor(s):
      • Yes
      • Internet:
      • Yes
    Quote Originally Posted by TooNice
    Actually, I doubt that any drive, SCSI or otherwise is capable of 100MB yet. They are -getting- there, but not et.
    Gigabyte iRam is fast

    I'm wondering how fast the next gen 22k rpm SCSI drives will be too.

    Nox

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,561
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    244 times in 206 posts
    *Shrug*. I must've missed the news.. but I am not into first gen drives. They tend to have various issues, be it noise, heat etc. And performance tend to be sub-optimal to what they -can- do. Oh, and they cost a lot too. Don't get me wrong, I was drooling all over the 15k Cheetah when it was announced/released. But common sense prevailed, and I even left the SCSI game. The one thing I am well impressed by SCSI drive is that they last a good while. The PC I bought in 1998 is still working (passed it onto my flatmate), and that came with a 2nd gen 10k Cheetah.

    What I am more interested in, with this news, is if more manufacturers other than WD will finally release 10k RPM SATA drives.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. how to change boot order sata -> ide on a asus a7n8x?
    By dgr in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 13-07-2010, 08:18 PM
  2. A8V and single SATA drive
    By Kebab in forum SCAN.care@HEXUS
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 23-06-2006, 08:58 PM
  3. single sata barracuda with asus a8v
    By space cadet in forum Help! Quick Relief From Tech Headaches
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-03-2005, 02:26 PM
  4. SATA > IDE converter
    By Lexeus in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-08-2004, 07:14 PM
  5. IDE or SATA??
    By RVF500 in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 23-05-2004, 03:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •