I got Multiple HDD's which would be best for games?

Swisshut · 25th April 2007, 7:40 PM

I got multiple HDD's:

C:\ 1x 500gb Samsung SataII 16mb (Master Drive with XP OS)

D:\ 2x 250gb WD HDD in RAID 0

Would I get better performance if my games were on the same drive as my OS or should I put them on the raided drive?

Thanks in advance.

matthudson · 25th April 2007, 7:51 PM

raid 0 drives would be faster

H[]R3NDUS · 25th April 2007, 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swisshut

I got multiple HDD's:

C:\ 1x 500gb Samsung SataII 16mb (Master Drive with XP OS)

D:\ 2x 250gb WD HDD in RAID 0

Would I get better performance if my games were on the same drive as my OS or should I put them on the raided drive?

Thanks in advance.

maybe just read up on the specs of those hard drives and see wich has the Fastest seek times..

there probably both pretty dodgy but 1 has to be seeking faster than the other...

Or just download hd tach and benchmark them. here is the link.

http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public...request=HdTach

Cheers Hori

Swisshut · 25th April 2007, 8:19 PM

yeah might try that app.

the samsung is newer, but its also bigger which I though might slow it down a smidge.

also I remember reading a article on raiding hdd's and they said x2 hdd's in raid 0 don't offer a huge performance difference. its only every subsequent drive after the 2nd when performance really starts increasing.

Swisshut · 26th April 2007, 1:08 AM

I tried that program. I'm not sure how accurate it is though, as it didnt detect my raid array. Instead it found 2x300gig hdd's when they are 2x250gigs.

The tests still worked though. Seems the Samsung 500gig is faster then the 2 raided drives. lower access times and more mb/s. so I might try try running my games on this one

H[]R3NDUS · 27th April 2007, 10:00 AM

i find it hard to believe that the raid drives are slower in Mbps than the single drive...unless the raid drives are verry old n crappy.

Swisshut · 27th April 2007, 10:06 AM

I guess they could be quicker... like I said that little HD Churning program didn't detect my array or maybe it just doesn't test raided drives.

The samsung is SataII and the other two are about 7-8months old now and not sure if they were SataII possible just SATA.

Narcoticx2 · 27th April 2007, 10:10 AM

mind if i ask what the read/write times of the samsung were? they're not too expensive and my 120 pata drive is really slowing me down...

wild · 27th April 2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swisshut

I got multiple HDD's:

C:\ 1x 500gb Samsung SataII 16mb (Master Drive with XP OS)

D:\ 2x 250gb WD HDD in RAID 0

Would I get better performance if my games were on the same drive as my OS or should I put them on the raided drive?

Thanks in advance.

In theory the WD's are faster. But it depends on a lot of things. Are they IDE or SATA? What sort of RAID controller? PCI card or onboard?

salmon · 27th April 2007, 10:59 AM

2x 250s would be my pick

noboundaries-au · 27th April 2007, 11:14 AM

Get the specs on each drive and see which is faster. 1x 500 , or 2x 250

If both are the same rpm, they should in theory be pretty close, as the same amount of data would pass under the head each revolution.

Swisshut · 27th April 2007, 1:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narcoticx2

mind if i ask what the read/write times of the samsung were? they're not too expensive and my 120 pata drive is really slowing me down...

Sorry man can't remember. But I think I saw the specs on the samsung website.

Tenoq · 27th April 2007, 11:41 PM

I found gaming actually slower on RAID0 drives than single drives, due to the increased seek and overheads associated with using RAID0 (onboard controller). The only game that was actually faster was BF2, and I suspect that's because it had some rather large, contiguous files to load when it was running. Everything else was slower.

Generally lower seek is better for games, IMO. Raptor is ideal, but obviously noisy and expensive. Otherwise, your newer 500GB will probably give some decent performance - YMMV.

Swisshut · 28th April 2007, 12:39 AM

I've been playing a bit now with the samsung... just like going from AMD 3500 venice to X2 4600... no noticeable difference in performance playing battlefield.

Scotty1991 · 29th April 2007, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swisshut

I got multiple HDD's:

C:\ 1x 500gb Samsung SataII 16mb (Master Drive with XP OS)

D:\ 2x 250gb WD HDD in RAID 0

Would I get better performance if my games were on the same drive as my OS or should I put them on the raided drive?

Thanks in advance.

You should have probably installed your OS on the raid drives and the games, but store all your files and data on the 500GB as a storage drive, gives better performance to your system, while ensuring your data isnt destroyed when 1 of your RAID 0 drives dies, which may never happen, but there is a higher chance of it, because there are 2 drives to fail so it is doubled, where as with a single large, newer drive, the chance is lower.

25th April 2007, 7:40 PM	#1
Swisshut Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Perth, WA Posts: 590	I got Multiple HDD's which would be best for games? I got multiple HDD's: C:\ 1x 500gb Samsung SataII 16mb (Master Drive with XP OS) D:\ 2x 250gb WD HDD in RAID 0 Would I get better performance if my games were on the same drive as my OS or should I put them on the raided drive? Thanks in advance.

27th April 2007, 10:10 AM	#8
Narcoticx2 Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: 4158 Brisbane, Queensland Posts: 3,931	mind if i ask what the read/write times of the samsung were? they're not too expensive and my 120 pata drive is really slowing me down... __________________ 40+ Successful Trades :: Pixel Art Collaboration - Currently dead ... will be revived Intel Core i7 2720QM - 16GB DDR3 - nVidia Geforce GTX675M 2GB - 256GB Samsung 830 SSD - Ext. DVDRW - 95% Matte 1080p

27th April 2007, 10:59 AM	#10
salmon Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: 2228 Posts: 1,162	2x 250s would be my pick __________________ ----------- -Mac Book Pro 13"- -Core i7 2.8GHZ-4GB RAM-750GB- -----------

27th April 2007, 11:14 AM	#11
noboundaries-au Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Canberra, ACT Posts: 7,600	Get the specs on each drive and see which is faster. 1x 500 , or 2x 250 If both are the same rpm, they should in theory be pretty close, as the same amount of data would pass under the head each revolution. __________________ Successful Trades: inspectr, reetzy, sammy_b0i, Mr_LeE

27th April 2007, 11:41 PM	#13
Tenoq Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Melbourne Posts: 3,673	I found gaming actually slower on RAID0 drives than single drives, due to the increased seek and overheads associated with using RAID0 (onboard controller). The only game that was actually faster was BF2, and I suspect that's because it had some rather large, contiguous files to load when it was running. Everything else was slower. Generally lower seek is better for games, IMO. Raptor is ideal, but obviously noisy and expensive. Otherwise, your newer 500GB will probably give some decent performance - YMMV. __________________ Successful traders: MANY!

25th April 2007, 7:51 PM	#2
matthudson Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Charlestown, NSW (2290) Posts: 1,388	raid 0 drives would be faster

25th April 2007, 8:19 PM	#4
Swisshut Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Perth, WA Posts: 590	yeah might try that app. the samsung is newer, but its also bigger which I though might slow it down a smidge. also I remember reading a article on raiding hdd's and they said x2 hdd's in raid 0 don't offer a huge performance difference. its only every subsequent drive after the 2nd when performance really starts increasing.

26th April 2007, 1:08 AM	#5
Swisshut Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Perth, WA Posts: 590	I tried that program. I'm not sure how accurate it is though, as it didnt detect my raid array. Instead it found 2x300gig hdd's when they are 2x250gigs. The tests still worked though. Seems the Samsung 500gig is faster then the 2 raided drives. lower access times and more mb/s. so I might try try running my games on this one

27th April 2007, 10:00 AM	#6
H[]R3NDUS Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 962	i find it hard to believe that the raid drives are slower in Mbps than the single drive...unless the raid drives are verry old n crappy.

27th April 2007, 10:06 AM	#7
Swisshut Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Perth, WA Posts: 590	I guess they could be quicker... like I said that little HD Churning program didn't detect my array or maybe it just doesn't test raided drives. The samsung is SataII and the other two are about 7-8months old now and not sure if they were SataII possible just SATA.

28th April 2007, 12:39 AM	#14
Swisshut Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Perth, WA Posts: 590	I've been playing a bit now with the samsung... just like going from AMD 3500 venice to X2 4600... no noticeable difference in performance playing battlefield.