Intel SRT vs Raid 0 for a game drive

[Hellborne]

Hi,

I have this rig of mine. It's already got an SSD as OS drive, but I want to make a better performing game drive. I cannot afford a 1TB SSD and even 512 is a bit small for my collection. I don't want to keep uninstalling to make room. I have a 1TB HDD. Should I, to improve load performance on some games, get a second 1TB and RAID0 them, or get a 64GB SSD and SRT cache with it?

If this has been asked before, please direct me to that thread.

Thanks,

 

[RealBeast]

I would select (c) none of the above. RAID 0 is really not going to help much and will put your data at higher risk due to drive failure or since you will use chipset RAID any hiccup in the bios will break the array. A 64GB SRT cache won't really help a lot either since it will only cache what is used most frequently, unless you play one game for a long time before moving on to the next.

Games are not very storage dependent anyway, and I don't even usually recommend an SSD for a gaming only build unless the user wants a faster Windows boot time.

 

[popatim]

Raid0 is really good at transferring large sequential files, sadly it usually runs slower than a single drive when transferring numerous small files, as in the case of windows & games loading (as already mentioned) so would be of little benefit to you.

I would recommend a SSD large enough to hold the games you are currently playing and then when done with them move them to the slower 'storage' hdd. This is easy enough to do with Steam & Origin games.

 

[geofelt]

Raid-0 has been over hyped as a performance enhancer.
Sequential benchmarks do look wonderful, but the real world does not seem to deliver the indicated performance benefits for most
desktop users. The reason is, that sequential benchmarks are coded for maximum overlapped I/O rates.
It depends on reading a stripe of data simultaneously from each raid-0 member, and that is rarely what we do.
The OS does mostly small random reads and writes, so raid-0 is of little use there.
There are some apps that will benefit. They are characterized by reading large files in a sequential overlapped manner. I doubt you would notice any difference.

Larger 2tb drives are denser and will transfer more data per revolution.
You could check out the specs and see if any have a significantly faster sustained sequential data transfer rate than yours.

As to using a ssd as a cache, that is a possibility, depending on your usage pattern.
If you play one of your games constantly for a while, and then switch to another and play for a while, a cache might work. Theory is that the cache will get loaded on the first usage, then benefit from repeated reuse. Of course, the cache needs to be large enough to hold the entire game.
If you constantly switch, there would be little reuse.

Another similar option would be to use a Samsung ssd and use their "rapid mode" which caches in ram and ssd to help the hard drive. Read up on rapid mode; I suspect that might be the best option.

Lastly, I am not at all certain that drive speed is the key to loading a game.
I load civ 5 repeatedly. With 16gb, and a ssd, I would think that the load should find itself mostly in ram and go faster than it does.
Even with a i7, I think there is much cpu work that goes on also.

 

[Hellborne]

Thank you all. So, SSD RST cache it is then. 64 GB should be enuff to store several of my smaller games or a couple of big ones entirely. And yes, I don't tend to bounce between games much.

 

[popatim]

keep in mind with RST caching you dont have a choice on what gets cached on the SSD beyond running the app/game a bunch of times to get it there.

Otherwise post back with your experience after you get comfortable with it.
Thanks
Tim

 

[Hellborne]

It's cool. It saves me the hassle of moving games manually. I know the game performance will increase as the SRT learns.