Intel G2 2x80GB RAID 0 or 1x G2 160GB

[TheWhoDat]

I am looking to take the plunge and upgrade to SSD.

I currently have 2x300GB VelociRaptors in RAID 0.

I am trying to decide between:

2x Intel G2 80GB SSD in RAID 0
or
1x Intel G2 120GB.

Which option should I choose.

Also will I notice a difference going from the 2xRAID 0 VR to SSD?
I mostly play games with this computer, and I realize I will need another HD for most games. However I do also use this computer For VMs (1 for Development) and the VHD will also have to be on another HD.

Thank you for any advice/input.

Sorry if this has been asked before, I tried some searching for this.

 

[irev210]

I've installed 80GB G2 in raid0 and just 80GB stand alone... on paper, it may seem much faster, but real world doesn't make a HUGE difference - you probably wouldn't even notice unless you are doing very data-intense stuff like photoshop, etc. Gaming, 1ssd will be great.

What I would do is go for the 160GB now, and when you need more space get another 160GB and then rock a raid0

Coming from your raptor, you will notice a NICE bump in speed.

 

[jinduy]

2 80gb costs more than 1 160gb so 160gb seems like a no brainer

 

[Glenn]

I've installed 80GB G2 in raid0 and just 80GB stand alone... on paper, it may seem much faster, but real world doesn't make a HUGE difference - you probably wouldn't even notice unless you are doing very data-intense stuff like photoshop, etc. Gaming, 1ssd will be great.

What I would do is go for the 160GB now, and when you need more space get another 160GB and then rock a raid0

Coming from your raptor, you will notice a NICE bump in speed.

I 2nd this experience. I've had raid 80's and 160's and other than benchmarks I haven't noticed much of a difference. Plus, you loose trim in Raid.

 

[Yuriman]

I opted for two 80's. At the time, it was a no-brainer. I'm happy with my decision.

 

[Hacp]

1x 160GB.

 

[taltamir]

2x80GB RAID0 does NOT support TRIM, also they COST more...
so the 160GB is a much better choice.

You will notice a huge improvement going from 2xVelicraptor 300GB to a single 160GB G2 intel SSD.
you will eventually get used to it and it will not seem "that fast" anymore, but everything you will try using a computer with a spindle drive afterwards it would feel like its crawling. (think back to the FIRST time you ever drove on a highway, how fast 60mph felt compared to 30mph the first time...)

sequential speed is 2x, random speed is orders of magnitude better.

Oh, I recommend you install your heavy and new games on the SSD. it makes a huge difference in loading times of levels (also make sure the save games are stored on the SSD, might be a bit tricky considering they are often stored in your documents folder)

 

[Beautiful_Life]

I would choose 2x80. I don't know why the others say a single 160 is cheaper. From all the prices I see, 2x80 is cheaper.

You will notice a difference, just not much. Maybe in boot times and loading big programs like Photoshop, After Effect etc.

You will lose TRIM in raid, but you don't really need it anyway. TRIM only affects write speed, which is highly unlikely you'll ever be copying that huge amount of data to your SSD or even have a device capable of transferring at that speed. Plus write speeds for a used SSD in RAID is faster than a SSD with TRIM.

 

[n7]

I would recommend the single 160 GB without question.

I have three Intel SSDs.
A G1 80 GB, & two G2 80 GBs.

All three have developed broken (way below normal) write speeds over time as i've used them on Vista & w/ RAID (no TRIM), & i'm not writing tons of crap to them either.

No "optimizers", etc. can fix this either; only way that works for me is Secure Erase.

So IME, the benefit of TRIM cannot be overlooked; it's actually rather important IMO, at least for the Intel.

Weirdly enough, my OCZ Agility has had more written to it than the Intels, & even without running their wiper tool regularly, it retains its performance.

 

[TC91]

Weirdly enough, my OCZ Agility has had more written to it than the Intels, & even without running their wiper tool regularly, it retains its performance.

Garbage collection FTW

 

[irev210]

I would recommend the single 160 GB without question.

I have three Intel SSDs.
A G1 80 GB, & two G2 80 GBs.

All three have developed broken (way below normal) write speeds over time as i've used them on Vista & w/ RAID (no TRIM), & i'm not writing tons of crap to them either.

No "optimizers", etc. can fix this either; only way that works for me is Secure Erase.

So IME, the benefit of TRIM cannot be overlooked; it's actually rather important IMO, at least for the Intel.

Weirdly enough, my OCZ Agility has had more written to it than the Intels, & even without running their wiper tool regularly, it retains its performance.

you don't run the intel SSD toolbox cleaner? That works great for me, always restores performance to original speed.

 

[CZroe]

you don't run the intel SSD toolbox cleaner? That works great for me, always restores performance to original speed.

Think that'll work for the crappy insanely slow Intel SSDs included in 8GB Acer Aspire one netbooks? They are ZIF-type 1.8" "drives" that are actually just exposed flash chips on a PCB half the size of a typical 1.8" drive.

 

[rolodomo]

2 Intel G2(s) on a low overhead (RAID 0), low latency inducing Intel ICH10R work quite well together. I've been pleased with my 2x80GB RAID setup, and yes, you can use the Intel SSD toolbox cleaner to manually trim in RAID (Intel Matrix). It was designed for G2(s).

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&p=3

 

[taltamir]

This that'll work for the crappy insanely slow Intel SSDs included in 8GB Acer Aspire one netbooks? They are ZIF-type 1.8" "drives" that are actually just exposed flash chips on a PCB half the size of a typical 1.8" drive.

thats not an intel SSD (intel controller), thats an SSD using intel MLC. Companies usually use intel, micron, and samsung MLC chips in their SSDs, the performance is determined by the firmware and the controller, not by the MLC chips which are all nearly identical.

And no, the toolbox will not help those.

 

[CZroe]

thats not an intel SSD (intel controller), thats an SSD using intel MLC. Companies usually use intel, micron, and samsung MLC chips in their SSDs, the performance is determined by the firmware and the controller, not by the MLC chips which are all nearly identical.

And no, the toolbox will not help those.

Except that it is an Intel SSD...

Solid state drives
The A110 model ships with an 8 GB or 16 GB solid-state drive (SSD), although some models do not come with one. Early 8 GB models come with the Intel Z-P230, model SSDPAMM0008G1. This SSD has been criticized for its slow read and write speed. Intel lists the drive's maximum speeds as 38 MB/s read and 10 MB/s write.[28] Later models come with the slightly faster Samsung P-SSD 1800.

Mine is the 8GB Intel Z-P230 SSDPAMM0008G1.

Good info though. I guess I'll just try the tool and see? FWIW, it was originally a Linux machine, so it would not have had any Windows optimization tools or file system tweaks.

Edit: Tried it. No workie: "Intel SSDs Only"

 

[n7]

you don't run the intel SSD toolbox cleaner? That works great for me, always restores performance to original speed.

RAID is not supported; options are unclickable.

I like how it thinks my Seagate 1.5TB there is RAID too.

 

[rolodomo]

n7, thanks for clearing that up.

That's a big negative in my opinion. I read they were updating it for RAID support, empty talk I guess.

I have a reliable backup/restore solution, so I'll probably try a backup/reformat/restore at least one time when I feel the need to reinitialize the SSD(s), but that's harder and risky.

 

[irev210]

RAID is not supported; options are unclickable.

I like how it thinks my Seagate 1.5TB there is RAID too.

oh that sucks

yeah definitely another reason not to go raid (yet)

I like the expandability, personally.

by the time I fill up my 80gb, a 2nd 80gb will be much cheaper and intel will hopefully have trim and raid play nice together

 

[n7]

There is really no need for RAID-0 w/ SSDs other than for nice synthetic benchmark numbers.

I would not have gone RAID-0 normally, but i got a great deal on my two G2s, so i figured why not.

I will likely actually go back to one when i finally get around to installing 7 on my main system.

 

[taltamir]

Except that it is an Intel SSD...

I stand corrected. thats some crappy drive right there.

 

[CZroe]

I stand corrected. thats some crappy drive right there.

Yup. At least FlashFire makes it tolerable with a few other tweaks.

It's funny when I describe my crappy netbook to someone and they hear "SSD" and think "high-performance." I'm about to install a 20GB 1.8" drive in it anyway (modification required)... I just hope the powerful magnets in my motorcycle's tank bag don't prove to be a problem.

 

[Makaveli]

I agree with N7

Go with 1 single 160G2 drive.

 

[drizek]

80GB G1s are $150 on newegg right now. Seems like the best price/performance you can get right now to RAID those.

I bought one, I wish I could afford another.

 

[taltamir]

Yup. At least FlashFire makes it tolerable with a few other tweaks.

It's funny when I describe my crappy netbook to someone and they hear "SSD" and think "high-performance." I'm about to install a 20GB 1.8" drive in it anyway (modification required)... I just hope the powerful magnets in my motorcycle's tank bag don't prove to be a problem.

heh, well... I have seen SSDs from the early days and recall how SSDs were universally slower then spindle disks at one point in time.

People get hung up on buzzwords. Its not SSD > HDD, its Model X > Model Y.
it just so happens that the absolutely fastest drives on the market right now are SSDs, that doesn't mean all SSDs are faster than all mechanical drives. Do the legwork and read up on a product before buying it.