S2005

My NEW question is, is that SSD better than the Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB that I ordered...

My SSD is a little bit older... its a Patriot Warp...

Beelzeboss

Any SSD is better than the best HDD.

__________________

**The Prolimatech Club**

4 GHz Overclock Club

S2005

Patriot SSD:
# Sequential Read: up to 175MB/s
# Sequential Write: up to 100MB/s
# Random Access Time: I can't find one Though I'm sure it's lower.

Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB: Source
# Average Read: 124.8Mb/s
# Average Write: 96.7Mb/s
# Burst: 258.9Mb/s
# Random Access Time: 13.8m/s

RonB94GT

I have the new SATS 6 HD. Still only get 5.9.

__________________

kiwwanna

Something like this will yield better numbers http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...136365&Tpk=RE4. A few drives on a good raid card with write and read cachin enabled will do wonders. I get 1200mb/s burst rates and steady transfers of 340 mb/s between drives

__________________

meetajhu

How about this



my friends lmao

__________________
Killzone 2 the most epic game,best fps and best graphics i've ever played in 17 years of gaming and amazing thing ever seen in my life!

PSN id-DarkTerror666
XBL-Dark||Terror
Steam-Dudezilla

lsudvm

RAID 0 a couple of SSDs - Intel SSD X-25E 32GB and get a 7.9. it worked here

BlackOmega

This is exactly what I mean --I think the test is rigged.
Because if you were to run an actual benchmark like HDtune or HDtach you'd see a good speed increase; yet windows 7 doesn't change the score at all.
That score is BS.

If you got more of those 1TB drives and put them in a RAID 0 config and then short stroke the drives (allocate less space for use than is actually available), with a good dedicated RAID controller, you'd double the performance of the SSD.
There was a guy that did it (I'll see if I can find the write up), his average read/write speeds were ~400MB/s and his burst speed was right around 2GB/s.
Although to get that kind of performance you'd need a dedicated RAID controller as the onboard ones aren't that great.

__________________
¡¡¡ʍʇɟ qn1ɔ uoıʇɐıɔǝɹddɐ 939 ʇǝʞɔos ǝɥʇ

grayfox99

Yes, I agree... May I ask what exactly is the difference between onboard and dedicated/hardware RAID? Is it a huge difference? (HDD noob)

Is it worth even going onboard RAID IYO (in your opinion/s) then? Although dedicated RAID cards are expensive..

__________________

BlackOmega

Once again not totally true, while SSD's are getting better they're not super duper fast as all of you are making them out to be. Sure their access times are very quick, as they should be with digital transfers, but even a 6ms access time is fast. Remember we're talking about MILLISECONDS.
You should read this. I'm sure you'll find it eye-opening even though it is somewhat dated.
The biggest difference is that a dedicated RAID controller has it's own onboard processor to process the data. Whereas onboard uses the CPU.

The difference can be substantial. Typically the way it works is the more drives you run, the more important [for performance] a dedicated controller is. Or if you want to run a RAID type that is not supported by the onboard.
It sure is. RAID 0, even using an onboard controller, will effectively increase read/write and burst speeds. Using my drives for an example (they're a little dated), 1 drive by itself gets is about 55Mb/s whereas in RAID 0 it over doubles to 117 MB/s. This is the first time I tried a 3rd drive and it didn't really seem to improve it much (124mb/s) but one of the drives doesn't match. 2 are WD RE16 (server HDD's) and one is a SE16 however they all do have the same specs (250GB, 7200 RPM, 16MB cache).

__________________
¡¡¡ʍʇɟ qn1ɔ uoıʇɐıɔǝɹddɐ 939 ʇǝʞɔos ǝɥʇ