2x Intel 80GB X25-M RAID0 or 1x Intel 160GB X25-M?

[zAAm]

I'm considering getting on the SSD bandwagon, and I've decided I like the Intel SSD's. What would you guys recommend? Two 80GB X25-M SSD's with 250MB/s read and 70MB/s write (giving ~400MB/s and ~120MB/s probably? ) or a single 160GB X25-M SSD with 250MB/s read and 100MB/s write? Both are the second generation 34nm versions and both setups will run about the same amount: ~R4000 (or ~$540)

Also, I've read that Intel now supports TRIM over RAID drives so TRIM will be supported on both setups I believe? Even if it's handled by the Intel driver versus the Windows 7 driver.

Now another thing to consider is I'll be using Intel's ICH10R southbridge's RAID controller (Intel Matrix). Will this cap the RAID0 volume's speed to something less than impressive? Or will this still outshine the 160GB single drive by a respectable margin?

Also, what will the latency implications be? Will the RAID controller increase the latencies by a huge margin or will it be negligible?

I'm currently running two 500GB Seagate 7200.12 drives in RAID0 as my system drive so I guess the switch to SSD's will provide a huge performance increase...

Thanks

 

[Carl2]

I've just put an Intel 160 Gb SSD into a gateway computer, I got a package deal that included a USB connection to the drive and cloning software. Useless for me. I have recovery disks Vista 64 b and an upgrade to Win 7. I tried the cloning, got the same boot time about 1 Min 30 sec and the same win performance of 5.9. I reformatted and did a clean install of Win 7 when the OS arrived. Boot time is less than half, Win 7 performance of 7.8.
Before installing the SSD I'd tried raid 0, I got a R of 270 Mb and W of 240 Mb, same boot time, and performance of 5.9. There were some benchmarks of SSD's in Raid 0 at this forum and the results look impressive.
After the SSD and clean install of Win 7 was up and running I purchased a Kingston 64 Gb SSD, to as a storage drive, I had the apps install on the storage drive except for the Virus protection. It pulled down the performance index but the boot time is the same. The Intel toolbox will not work with the Kingston drive.
I'd be interested in you're results, let me know how you make out.
Carl2

 

[Ripper3]

I'd say the RAID0 setup would be quicker. Intel's ICH10R should give some impressive advantages over non-RAID setup still, and would probably be the most supportive of their SSD's features (though it more than likely makes as much as no difference).
R/W speeds should see a healthy boost with RAID0, no matter what, and if it's the same price roughly, there's no penalty for trying.

 

[Carl2]

Try reading this post, 2*X25-V RAID0 vs 1*X25-M. It says trim will not work with arrays.
Carl2

 

[mlee49]

Intel's new Raid Matrix drivers support TRIM for SSD RAID now. Even if you dont care about TRIM support use Intel's Matrix cause the stock Win7 isn't nearly as fast. I tested it to be 40% of the overall potential. Just installing the matrix drivers it boosted speeds immensely.

A single SSD will be a hell of an upgrade, dual SSD's will be a blazing fast upgrade. I suggest dual drives in RAID0, the performance benefits are there.

 

[alucasa]

Once you go SSD, you never go back.

It's dat good.

 

[zAAm]

Thanks for all the input!

I'm still wondering what the latencies will be though? I think only two drives in RAID0 won't put that much strain on the latencies, but that thinking is for normal hard drives, and I don't know if the controller latencies will start to become a big factor considering the microsecond latencies of the SSD's...

EDIT: Found an answer on another forum. Seems the guy had EXACTLY the same question as me. Turns out the latencies are about the same between RAID0 and single drive configurations. Then that's settled I guess

 

[Carl2]

Very nice site. After looking all over the Intel website, doing searches, reading papers I still couldn't find the trim support for raid mentioned. A quick search here found it.
Carl2