Hello,
I'm planning on buying a new PC. I would like to know if RAID 0 improves gaming and if there are any benchmarks on the net to support this. From how many disks would it be better? Is SCSI better price/quality? Can you use RAID with SCSI?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by zikan on 09/30/01 08:37 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

You will see virtually no difference using RAID0. I wouldn't use SCSI, since SCSI is so damn expensive. In fact, it might be worth your while to get 2 Seagate IVs 40GB and put them in RAID1, which offers excellent piece of mind. Yes, you can use RAID with SCSI, but with SCSI you're looking at $200 for the RAID card, and $180-350 per drive. Its just not worth it.

"If you teach a child to read, then he or her will be able to pass a literacy test" - George W.

if your just gaming get biggest ide drive you can afford (udma100) cos most modern games eat hd space
raid0 has no effect on games (except maybe loading times)!!
SCSIs as above but very expensive for big drives!!
aim for somewere between 40 to 80gigs

nah, go with scsi man. get 2 or 3 ultra 160 drives and put them in raid 0. that's really the only way you're going to see decent performance in a game.

ewww, put that thing away, you're in public!

Yeah, if you wanna spend 1500 dollars on storage, go ahead.

I actually have an IDE RAID0 array, and the performance benefit is really not that large. According to PC Pitstop, it runs about 34% faster than an average setup. You don't see much difference between RAID0 and normal. Not even in UT game load time, where UT needs to load all those damn config files, its minimally faster.

"If you teach a child to read, then he or her will be able to pass a literacy test" - George W.

you've got money to burn then?????

i still say for the small amount of benefits you'll see from scsi, go with a scsi raid. oh and also make sure you get at least a gig of ram, i wouldn't trust a game with any less memory than that.

ewww, put that thing away, you're in public!

Are you on crack? A friggin gig of RAM??? Win98 cant even support a gig of RAM!

"If you teach a child to read, then he or her will be able to pass a literacy test" - George W.

no, but win200 advanced server support 4gb, so 1gb should be fine.

ewww, put that thing away, you're in public!

Windows 98 fully supports 1GB of RAM and even more. You just have to limit the amount of cache Windows uses to 512MB. THAT IS NOT A LIMITATION! Who needs more than 512MB cache anyway?

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

still i say go with win2000 advanced server and 1gb of ram.

ewww, put that thing away, you're in public!

mbetea, if you're not going to make serious posts, then please don't post at all. You're not helping this thread out at all.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>

oh darn, my bad. please, like you can't go back about 5 or 6 pages and find 3 or more questions on the EXACT same topic? oh and i'm sure all the p!ssing contests that are just about eveywhere on this forum are very informative? like how many threads do we need about an amd or intel cpu, where it just turns into a big flame war? i don't see how a little smart a$$ or humorous comment from time to time is going to throw the whole universe out of whack. i am sorry for my comments and i do hope the planets re-align and peace and harmony is brought back upon the galaxy.

ewww, put that thing away, you're in public!

Thats called TROLLING
trolling isn't cool. If you're gonna make a joke, make a joke. Don't troll.

"If you teach a child to read, then he or her will be able to pass a literacy test" - George W.

4 posts in one thread that appear serious is more than "a little smart a$$ or humorous comment from time to time".

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>