RAID 0 generally is the best choice if you require high data transfer rates; in fact, it is possible to almost double throughput numbers by deploying a RAID 0 configuration. However, access times do not improve, and sometimes you will even see an increase in access time. Your everyday life with Windows won't be accelerated much by using a RAID 0 array, even if many people tend to believe that! We have proof for this statement in the form of benchmark numbers that compare the WD1500 Raptor with a two-drive RAID 0 setup that consists of two 7,200 RPM drives.
Proof? Their RAID 0 benchmarks were half baked! Comparing 2 Seagate 7200rpm drives in RAID 0 to 1 WD 10,000 RPM drive is like trying to compare a 4.3L V6 to a 4.6L V8. I am very disappointed with this article. If they had left the RAID 0 benches out it would have been fine, but they did a horrible job trying to compare RAID 0. They never even benched the WD1500AD in RAID 0!
I don't care what the frigin benchmarks say, RAID 0 makes a big difference in real world performance. Especially when you're running a write intensive application (like bit torrent or WinRAR) and trying to watch a movie, music, or surf the net at the same time. Any time you're both reading and writing in RAID 0- you're going to see a difference.
No offense to the authors, but this article is a frigin mess. You only benched the Seagate RAID 0 setup in ONE real world benchmark: WinXP start up which is pure READ. For some reason you left out the WRITE performance of the PCMark05 test. Why is that?
-mpjesse
I totally agree! This article was not very well thought out. Its as if they just threw in the RAID at the last 2 minutes and scrounged around for 2 HDDs. And the fact that they only used 2 seagate's is very pointed. They should write another article with the 150GB Raptor vs all kinds of brands in RAID 0 if they wanted to boast about it. Maybe they should use different controllers while they're at it...
This article tells me that they are just getting plain lazy.