I was planning to buy two WD Black 1tb drives. I will put all of my games on it, like Titanfall and Call of Duty Advanced Warfare. i was wondering if running these drives in RAID0 will lessen the time of loading these games. I was confident that it will since I've seen videos on Youtube which shows that RAiD0 drives had double performance when it comes to read and write speeds.
Could two hard drives in RAID0 improve game loading time?
maervince015
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Joined
·
70 Posts
I was planning to buy two WD Black 1tb drives. I will put all of my games on it, like Titanfall and Call of Duty Advanced Warfare. i was wondering if running these drives in RAID0 will lessen the time of loading these games. I was confident that it will since I've seen videos on Youtube which shows that RAiD0 drives had double performance when it comes to read and write speeds.
Joined
·
70 Posts
Quote:
I think that hard drives are reliable. I've been using my desktop for about 5 years now, and its hard drive is still in good condition. Well, yes, SSD's are fast, but they're expensive, and has a small storage capability. I think it's better to squeeze out performance from two hard drives.
You're not even answering my question.Originally Posted by soulwrath
Better to buy a SSD, less chances of the data being corrupted versus having it on a HDD.
I think that hard drives are reliable. I've been using my desktop for about 5 years now, and its hard drive is still in good condition. Well, yes, SSD's are fast, but they're expensive, and has a small storage capability. I think it's better to squeeze out performance from two hard drives.
Joined
·
4,193 Posts
SSD are not expensive anymore and the sizes are good.
SSD will still be faster than raid HDD. Lots of games and system performance benefit from SSD.
A good 256GB SSD can hold the OS + many 30GB games and still have plenty of room. That cost is around $110.
You can still use a HDD as secondary drive.
SSD will still be faster than raid HDD. Lots of games and system performance benefit from SSD.
A good 256GB SSD can hold the OS + many 30GB games and still have plenty of room. That cost is around $110.
You can still use a HDD as secondary drive.
Joined
·
142 Posts
My vote is SSD. Just picked up a 256GB Crucial MX100 myself for about 90bucks this week. Get your OS, all apps, and a few games on there!
Joined
·
3,241 Posts
Quote:
But yes it does decreases the time it takes to load games etc, the read/write speed will increase, but on average what the actual performance may be will fall short of the x2 belief
Raid 0 has a higher chance of being corrupted because of the increase of hdd. Yes you get more storage per dollar, but SSD's have dropped significantly in price and the risk of it getting corrupted is much lower than a HDD.Originally Posted by maervince015
You're not even answering my question.
I think that hard drives are reliable. I've been using my desktop for about 5 years now, and its hard drive is still in good condition. Well, yes, SSD's are fast, but they're expensive, and has a small storage capability. I think it's better to squeeze out performance from two hard drives.
But yes it does decreases the time it takes to load games etc, the read/write speed will increase, but on average what the actual performance may be will fall short of the x2 belief
Joined
·
3,057 Posts
Quote:
It depends on the game. Games which use "matchmaking" may not bring any improvement for you what so ever since it all depends on the "Host" of it all. If the host is on a slow HDD you'll be stuck waiting behind him anyway, doesn't matter how fast your RAID, HDD or SSD is. As You've said before that You asked about HDD's, it will give you some improvements on SP games for sure and on games with dedicated servers but other than that for gaming, not really.Originally Posted by maervince015
I was planning to buy two WD Black 1tb drives. I will put all of my games on it, like Titanfall and Call of Duty Advanced Warfare. i was wondering if running these drives in RAID0 will lessen the time of loading these games. I was confident that it will since I've seen videos on Youtube which shows that RAiD0 drives had double performance when it comes to read and write speeds.
Joined
·
6,057 Posts
Quote:
Yes, a mechanical RAID will offer a noticeable reduction in loading times.
Also, when assets need to be cached, that will be done in a quicker manner, too. For example, you are probably aware of the stuttering that occurs every Diablo III first run.
Also, in games like CS:GO it can be handy in games such as Casual matches where the early birds pick their teams, but not for competitive play.
I have no experience with CoD/BF, but you will see less loading screens, unless the client doesn't let you in the game until everyone has finished loading.
Moreover, if you have a third, spare HDD, there are tools that will help you migrate your data so that you can build the array and bring everything back. My Windows installation survived through a Mobo/chipset change, one disk to RAID upgrade, and then a migration onto an SSD.
On an SSD-unrelated note:Originally Posted by maervince015
I was planning to buy two WD Black 1tb drives. I will put all of my games on it, like Titanfall and Call of Duty Advanced Warfare. i was wondering if running these drives in RAID0 will lessen the time of loading these games. I was confident that it will since I've seen videos on Youtube which shows that RAiD0 drives had double performance when it comes to read and write speeds.
Yes, a mechanical RAID will offer a noticeable reduction in loading times.
Also, when assets need to be cached, that will be done in a quicker manner, too. For example, you are probably aware of the stuttering that occurs every Diablo III first run.
Also, in games like CS:GO it can be handy in games such as Casual matches where the early birds pick their teams, but not for competitive play.
I have no experience with CoD/BF, but you will see less loading screens, unless the client doesn't let you in the game until everyone has finished loading.
Moreover, if you have a third, spare HDD, there are tools that will help you migrate your data so that you can build the array and bring everything back. My Windows installation survived through a Mobo/chipset change, one disk to RAID upgrade, and then a migration onto an SSD.
Joined
·
1,564 Posts
Every game I've played(no anecdotal evidence with shooters though, last time I played one of those it was a WWII setting about 6 or 7 years ago lol) has had pretty good load time reductions from hdd raid 0. I'm not here to argue the pro's and con's of doing so though
![tongue.gif]( "tongue.gif")
Joined
·
3,057 Posts
Quote:
![biggrin.gif]( "biggrin.gif")
This reminded me actually. My friend with an revodrive was stuck behind the CSGO compt. host since You know, host has to get in first and he/she had a slow *** PC/HDD (I imagine at least). Made me giggle.Originally Posted by fragamemnon
On an SSD-unrelated note:
Yes, a mechanical RAID will offer a noticeable reduction in loading times.
Also, when assets need to be cached, that will be done in a quicker manner, too. For example, you are probably aware of the stuttering that occurs every Diablo III first run.
Also, in games like CS:GO it can be handy in games such as Casual matches where the early birds pick their teams, but not for competitive play.
I have no experience with CoD/BF, but you will see less loading screens, unless the client doesn't let you in the game until everyone has finished loading.
Moreover, if you have a third, spare HDD, there are tools that will help you migrate your data so that you can build the array and bring everything back. My Windows installation survived through a Mobo/chipset change, one disk to RAID upgrade, and then a migration onto an SSD.
It helps a bit but it's not worth the hassle.
Get a single good WD drive with 1tb platter (the new blacks or blues), dedicate it to gaming, partition it properly (*) and optimize it with MyDefrag data script and you will be fine. That makes a MASSIVE difference at a really low cost.
(*) if you know what "short-stroking" is and how a HDD works, otherwise feel free to ask/google it. It's way better than RAID-0.
Get a single good WD drive with 1tb platter (the new blacks or blues), dedicate it to gaming, partition it properly (*) and optimize it with MyDefrag data script and you will be fine. That makes a MASSIVE difference at a really low cost.
(*) if you know what "short-stroking" is and how a HDD works, otherwise feel free to ask/google it. It's way better than RAID-0.
Joined
·
70 Posts
Quote:
Thanks. I've searched it on Google, and I've found a site that will help me to help get started on this short-stroking process. Do you know any risks in doing this?Originally Posted by kalston
It helps a bit but it's not worth the hassle.
Get a single good WD drive with 1tb platter (the new blacks or blues), dedicate it to gaming, partition it properly (*) and optimize it with MyDefrag data script and you will be fine. That makes a MASSIVE difference at a really low cost.
(*) if you know what "short-stroking" is and how a HDD works, otherwise feel free to ask/google it. It's way better than RAID-0.
There are no risks at all, it's just what I would call "smart partitioning", getting the best out of a mechanical spinning drive - if you understand how a HDD works the whys and hows should be obvious
![smile.gif]( "smile.gif")
And you do not have to sacrifice any capacity - simply make 4 partitions or so, and name them and remember which one is which : first one will be the fastest, second will be a bit slower etc.
On my drive it's like this : 1st partition = 100Gb, 2nd = 200Gb, 3rd = 300Gb and one last partition with the remaining capacity (about 350 or something) which I use for games where performance isn't crucial (old, single player, very light etc)
And you do not have to sacrifice any capacity - simply make 4 partitions or so, and name them and remember which one is which : first one will be the fastest, second will be a bit slower etc.
On my drive it's like this : 1st partition = 100Gb, 2nd = 200Gb, 3rd = 300Gb and one last partition with the remaining capacity (about 350 or something) which I use for games where performance isn't crucial (old, single player, very light etc)
Joined
·
70 Posts
I've watched a video about this short-stroking, and I've found out that it's not really what I was looking for. It could only give me the maximum performance of my hard drive, and it could only do this on a partition. I want double the maximum performance, and I think RAID0 is much more better than this. But thanks anyway.
![smile.gif]( "smile.gif")
Quote:
Edit:
Also, not to mention: seek times. some games have their resources scattered over into many, many small files, and in such cases the loading times may become more than 10x faster with a SSD.
![rolleyes.gif]( "rolleyes.gif")
I remember when it was cool when my brand new RAID array of two WD blacks booted windows in 37 seconds and a certain game loaded in about 8 seconds. Now with the SSD times I feel like my OS that boots in 7 seconds is slow, and this particular game loads in less than a second.
![rolleyes.gif]( "rolleyes.gif")
How about more than quadruple performance? (yes, I'm talking about SSD's too..)Originally Posted by maervince015
I've watched a video about this short-stroking, and I've found out that it's not really what I was looking for. It could only give me the maximum performance of my hard drive, and it could only do this on a partition. I want double performance, and I think RAID0 is much more better than this. But thanks anyway.![smile.gif]( "smile.gif")
Edit:
Also, not to mention: seek times. some games have their resources scattered over into many, many small files, and in such cases the loading times may become more than 10x faster with a SSD.
Quote:
But I really don't recommend RAID-0 and no, it won't be double the performance in the real world besides when reading or writing on very large files.
If you really insist on RAID-0 then you should at least combine this with smart partitioning like I explained to truly get the best out of it. What I explained still stands for RAID setups. If you don't do it you're wasting money considering your objective here is performance.Originally Posted by maervince015
I've watched a video about this short-stroking, and I've found out that it's not really what I was looking for. It could only give me the maximum performance of my hard drive, and it could only do this on a partition. I want double the maximum performance, and I think RAID0 is much more better than this. But thanks anyway.![smile.gif]( "smile.gif")
But I really don't recommend RAID-0 and no, it won't be double the performance in the real world besides when reading or writing on very large files.
Quote:
before someone says RAID-0 is horrible for backups: this "Temporary backups" array is, as said, temporary. stuff like image files temporarily from a physical or virtual computer stored temporarily so that i can test something weird or so, and easily restore the backup back some hours later. Everything is though backed up all the time onto a few RAID-1 arrays.
This. In fact, the RAID-0 with two WD Blacks back in the old days had lower performance while dealing with small files compared to a single WD Black. Thus I have a RAID-0 array in only one place: the temporary backup location where I only dump backup images (100-2000GB in size).Originally Posted by kalston
But I really don't recommend RAID-0 and no, it won't be double the performance in the real world besides when reading or writing on very large files.
before someone says RAID-0 is horrible for backups: this "Temporary backups" array is, as said, temporary. stuff like image files temporarily from a physical or virtual computer stored temporarily so that i can test something weird or so, and easily restore the backup back some hours later. Everything is though backed up all the time onto a few RAID-1 arrays.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
