Raptor Raid0, Intel X25-V Raid 0, or X25-M?

[Halogen23]

I will be building a new rig soon, and have been debating which route to take for my primary storage drive for OS(win7 64bit) basic progs(word, intenet, music/movie software) and games... I had three main ideas; which would be best overall in terms of balanced performance?

(I also like the fact that SSDs are silent, but if the HDD solution would be fast enough I would be willing to overlook)

1. 4 x WD Raptor 74GB Raid 0
2. 2 x Intel X25-V Raid 0
3. Single Intel X25-M G2

 

[rcpratt]

Well, I don't know what you consider "fast enough", but personally I don't think Raptors make sense right now. WD Blacks are plenty fast if you're not ready to shell out the cash for an SSD.

If you do go for an SSD, I'd just get a single X25-M G2 80GB. The random reads/writes will probably be faster than two X25-Vs in RAID 0. It'll also just be easier with one drive instead of two.

 

[her209]

Because I'm using Windows XP anyways, if the price of the Intel X25-V is half the price of the X25-M G2, I'd go with the X25-V.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I wouldn't trust my OS on a 4 drive RAID 0 setup. One of those drives are going to fail, I just know it. 2x X25-V RAID 0 might be nice, but then you'll lose TRIM support if I'm not mistaken.

A single 80GB X25-M G2 is the best option I think.

 

[Halogen23]

I wouldn't trust my OS on a 4 drive RAID 0 setup. One of those drives are going to fail, I just know it. 2x X25-V RAID 0 might be nice, but then you'll lose TRIM support if I'm not mistaken.

A single 80GB X25-M G2 is the best option I think.

The more I read about TRIM, the more I must agree with that. And yes, it would be easier overall to just use one drive.

 

[Reckie]

Is the x25v much slower so that it would be stupid to buy two of these instead of a single x25m in 80GB? (Will run them as single disk so no RAID)

 

[Throckmorton]

An actual Blu Ray disc stores 100GB, so it's pretty compressed to fit in 8GB (the size of a DVD) I think that file probably uses much more sophisticated compression, which is why it takes so much horsepower to decode

 

[ScorcherDarkly]

The X-25V has less than half of the performance of the X-25M, so raiding 2 together won't get you back to M performance levels. And you can't use TRIM in a raid. Just get the single 80 GB drive.

 

[ViviTheMage]

single 80GB X25-M G2 is my option, two x-25v's wouldn't allow for TRIM if I recall.

 

[Spikesoldier]

single 160gb g2 intel drive is probably the best option for single drive atm.

skip the x25-v, and make a real splash if you are going to get one.

i got the g1 before the g2 came out, but i got a second g1 for RAID0 when I learned that they wont get TRIM and it is lost anyway when using in a RAID array.

 

[Makaveli]

I also vote for the 80GB X25-M Intel drive. If you can afford it then the 160GB drive.

 

[Emulex]

perceived performance the x25-v is not alot slower. benchmark queen performance yes.

for $95 (kingston retail kit) shipped it is quite an upgrade for anything with a drive in it.

of course buy what you can afford. the 80gb is a sweet spot but i'd live with a 40gb any day over any consumer hard drive.

it's all about the latency

 

[AnalyticalGuy]

Edit: Regarding the "Trim vs. RAID 0" discussion, is there a benchmark that incorporates the performance benefit of Trim? (To show the maximum performance benefit of Trim, I suppose it would fill the disk with data, mark all the data for deletion, and then sit idle for a while before continuing the benchmark.) In the absence of such a benchmark, this is the best comparison I've found so far of single SSD vs. two SSDs in RAID 0. Anyone have a link to better comparison data?

Newegg Review: Intel G2 SSD RAID Test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etW-cFn2saA

Sequential Read
249.5 MB/s (x25-M G2, single 80GB)
392.9 MB/s (x25-M G2, 2x 80GB in RAID 0)

Sequential Write
90.7 MB/s (x25-M G2, single 80GB)
165.0 MB/s (x25-M G2, 2x 80GB in RAID 0)

Random Read 512K
201.9 MB/s (x25-M G2, single 80GB)
241.1 MB/s (x25-M G2, 2x 80GB in RAID 0)

Random Write 512K
90.7 MB/s (x25-M G2, single 80GB)
162.9 MB/s (x25-M G2, 2x 80GB in RAID 0)

 

[Claudius-07]

Honestly -- I don't see the need for any "older" HD type other than storage really. ONE SSD for your OS (and no need for raid)... and one regular old HD (WD Black or Green are my favs now), for storage.

I got tired of wiating a while back for the Intel G2's so I got a 30GB OCZ Vertex Turbo for my OS, 1 WD Green 1TB for my storage and got a fantastic deal on another OCZ Vertex where all my games are installed. So small OCZ vertex turbo has my OS and apps, WD 1TB Green has my movies, backup of files, ISO's... crap like that, and the few games I play are all installed on the 60 GB OCZ Vertex.

It's actually overkill the way it is now... life is good with SSD.

 

[guskline]

Halogen23: I have the Intel X25M G2 80gig in my machine holding my OS ( Win7 Pro 64) plus Office 2007 enterprise, some other small apps and a fixed 8.3gig pagefile and it shows total size as 74.4 gigs with 47.6 gigs free. It is incredibly fast. I use a Seagate sata II 7200 rpm 250 gig and a WD Green 1 tb as my storage drives.Here is my data:
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta2 (
Intel ssd
Sequential Read : 263.594 MB/s
Sequential Write : 89.203 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 199.217 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 90.260 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 23.694 MB/s [ 5784.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 57.235 MB/s [ 13973.3 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 123.294 MB/s [ 30101.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 74.526 MB/s [ 18194.9 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: Used 30.2% (22.4/74.4 GB)]
Date : 2010/01/04 21:08:59
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
Seagate 250gb
Sequential Read : 105.682 MB/s
Sequential Write : 105.131 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 42.227 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 36.542 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.638 MB/s [ 155.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.057 MB/s [ 258.1 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.943 MB/s [ 230.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 1.046 MB/s [ 255.5 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [E: Used 5.5% (12.8/232.9 GB)]
Date : 2010/01/04 21:10:40
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
WD Green 1 tb
Sequential Read : 92.337 MB/s
Sequential Write : 88.660 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 37.244 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 51.007 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.505 MB/s [ 123.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.148 MB/s [ 280.3 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.992 MB/s [ 242.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 1.149 MB/s [ 280.5 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [F: Used 12.4% (60.5/488.3 GB)]
Date : 2010/01/04 21:12:30
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

 

[guskline]

Halogen23: I have the Intel X25M G2 80gig in my machine holding my OS ( Win7 Pro 64) plus Office 2007 enterprise, some other small apps and a fixed 8.3gig pagefile and it shows total size as 74.4 gigs with 47.6 gigs free. It is incredibly fast. I use a Seagate sata II 7200 rpm 250 gig and a WD Green 1 tb as my storage drives.Here is my data:
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta2 (
Intel ssd
Sequential Read : 263.594 MB/s
Sequential Write : 89.203 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 199.217 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 90.260 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 23.694 MB/s [ 5784.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 57.235 MB/s [ 13973.3 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 123.294 MB/s [ 30101.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 74.526 MB/s [ 18194.9 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: Used 30.2% (22.4/74.4 GB)]
Date : 2010/01/04 21:08:59
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
Seagate 250gb
Sequential Read : 105.682 MB/s
Sequential Write : 105.131 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 42.227 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 36.542 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.638 MB/s [ 155.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.057 MB/s [ 258.1 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.943 MB/s [ 230.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 1.046 MB/s [ 255.5 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [E: Used 5.5% (12.8/232.9 GB)]
Date : 2010/01/04 21:10:40
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
WD Green 1 tb
Sequential Read : 92.337 MB/s
Sequential Write : 88.660 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 37.244 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 51.007 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.505 MB/s [ 123.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.148 MB/s [ 280.3 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.992 MB/s [ 242.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 1.149 MB/s [ 280.5 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [F: Used 12.4% (60.5/488.3 GB)]
Date : 2010/01/04 21:12:30
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
WD Green 1 tb
Sequential Read : 92.337 MB/s
Sequential Write : 88.660 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 37.244 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 51.007 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.505 MB/s [ 123.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.148 MB/s [ 280.3 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.992 MB/s [ 242.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 1.149 MB/s [ 280.5 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [F: Used 12.4% (60.5/488.3 GB)]
Date : 2010/01/04 21:12:30
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

 

[AnalyticalGuy]

Yuck -- booting Windows 7 was slower in RAID 0 compared to a single SSD...

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article/2009/07/06/ssd_raid_scaling_under_windows_7/4

 

[AnalyticalGuy]

What about having two X-25V SSDs as separate drives rather than in RAID 0? And putting Windows 7 on one SSD and applications (including anti-virus) on the other SSD.

Of course, I would get the benefit of having Trim on both drives.

Now suppose my benchmark was the time it takes to:
1) boot Windows 7,
2) load my anti-virus software (Kaspersky in my case) and let it finish its bootup procedure,
3) load Firefox into RAM,
4) load Microsoft Word into RAM,
5) since I'm a developer, load Microsoft Visual Studio into RAM.

I wonder how the following would compare?
A) A single SSD,
B) Two SSDs as separate drives,
C) Two SSDs in RAID 0.

 

[branney]

I am also choosing between a 40GB X25-V, and a 80GB X25-M at double the price.

The X25-M is part SSDSA2MH080G2C1, so I think that makes it G2.
The X25-V is part SSDSA2MP040G2R5, which I think is also G2 - is that correct?
If so, presumably the X25-V would be half the speed in sequential but equal for random write speeds.

This is for my dad's birthday. He wants to play games on it, and will probably not upgrade it for a long time!
Do the Indilinx drives sit in between the two Intels for performance, or closer to the X25-V?
And should I be worried about the idle garbage collection shortening the lifespan on Indilinx drives?

 

[solofly]

3...

 

[Emulex]

the x25-V is like 80-90% as fast in reading as the X25-M 80gb.

It is about 50% as fast in writing as the x25-M 80gb.

Most users read 90% and write 0-10% so your dad would probably never notice the difference between the two.

good luck finding benchmarks on the vertex 30/60 - they seem to only allow official benchmarks on the 120 which obviously has alot more channels.

 

[MagickMan]

I ordered the M25-X 160GB G2 last week and it arrives tomorrow. I've been running around in circles, going nuts with anticipation. More than once I've smacked myself in the head for not getting overnight shipping. This is killing me.