F3's in Raid 0 or a cheap SSD for OS

[tankskun]

Hi, Im looking to upgrade on my current OS - HDD setup.

What would be faster? A pair of 500gb Samsung F3'S in raid0, or a cheap SSD like the 40gb KingstonV or the 40gb IntelV? as they would cost me under £100.
Thanks

 

[markiejt]

SSD by long way, but you will get a lot less space

 

[tankskun]

Space is not important I already have a 1tb for storage. So SSD is the way to go then.

 

[CAPTAINBUMFLUFF]

I believe the F3 raid would be better option I got one of them and get read speeds of 146mbs which I belive is very close to the cheap ssd's so two of them should beat it unless your getting a more expensive sdd like the corsair one or samsung

 

[PiKe]

I believe the F3 raid would be better option I got one of them and get read speeds of 146mbs which I belive is very close to the cheap ssd's so two of them should beat it unless your getting a more expensive sdd like the corsair one or samsung

But it's latency where SSD's absolutely destroy mechanical HDD's.

 

[CAPTAINBUMFLUFF]

latency? never heard of that before what does that mean. How does latency increase performance?
thanks

 

[PiKe]

The seek times of moving the head of the hard drive across the platter is nil with SSD as there isn't one. This makes loading small files very fast, so an SSD will always out-perform a mechanical drive for loading the OS every time.

 

[CAPTAINBUMFLUFF]

The seek times of moving the head of the hard drive across the platter is nil with SSD as there isn't one. This makes loading small files very fast, so an SSD will always out-perform a mechanical drive for loading the OS every time.

So even a cheap ssd will load o.s faster than my 1TB F3

Might purchase one soon

thanks

 

[Crixus00]

Get the SSD for OS and F3 for storage. Tis what i have now.

I used to have OS on F3 and, whilst it wasnt a bad performance, since i put the SSDs in response times are very noticably better