Originally Posted by Brutuz
In theory, it does.
In reality, it's too limited to come close to it.
There's so many things using the HDD/SSD at once that those benefits increase tenfold easily.
And superfetch is no-where nearly as fast. Seriously. Coming off my friends SSD carrying rig makes my rig feel so god-damn slow its painful.
And yet my own experience says otherwise. The difference from moving from a nice F3 to a 320 - barely noticeable. It all depends on what you do with your system. If you're like me, and you use only Skype, Firefox, and -maybe- WMP daily then you're better off without the SSD. Superfetch will be close enough to the SSD that the upgrade is far from worth it.
If you're running 15 different programs several times a day, sure, I bet the SSD will save you a boatload of time.
Originally Posted by Ladamyre
What's wrong with RAID0 for the OS? This YoutTube video is over 2 years old but the point is still valid.
If I had a couple grand to build a PC with today, I'd go RAID0 on at least two SSD's for the OS and RAID1 a couple of 3Tb Seagate's or WD's for storage.
Because it would be pointless. The difference in "speed" would only be measurable either during huge file transfers or during benchmarks. You're better off to buy one large SSD. You don't lose TRIM that way, either.Edited by pursuinginsanity - 10/7/11 at 5:12am