Lily GFX:

I keep forgetting my MSI motherboard have one of those add-on card and that I should actually use it. ^^ After seeing those results maybe I should try get a couple PCI4 gen NVMe next year anyhow since I do use Vegas Pro often. Not sure if I will raid them thou since I could use the space. :>

Wanya:

raid 0 does not loose space it only speeds up and all data is gone if one ssd breaks so external backup is adviced

nosirrahx:

You know what impresses me the most about those RAID 0 results? Its the fact that 4KQ1T1 was not impacted all that much on the read side and actually improved on the write side. Asus as well. Here are 4 905P in RAID 0 via Asus's 4X card: https://i.imgur.com/8sCtdLb.jpg Things are going to get very interesting once we have some reasonably priced PCIe 4 SSDs with next gen random read/write. Sequential speeds have exploded sine the 550 we had with SATA III but random read/write has not enjoyed the same growth at least in NAND world.

Lily GFX:

I think AMD still have some work to do with their raid solution, but Intel do this very well already. Hopefully they are more even there too soon. Maybe we will see more improvemet on random read/write when they are close to same performance on everything. ^^

Freitlein:

A clever drive and file arrangement and, as a result, a backup that is much easier to organize is generally a must. To think that a Raid0 is more dangerous than a single drive is theoretical nonsense in my opinion. I started to use 'mainboard controlled' Raid0 in my all in one workstations a long time ago (even as system-drive with multiple system-partitions) in addition to various other internal and external drives.. 2 x 256 GB HDD's -> 2 x512 GB HDD's -> 2 x 2TB HDD's -> + 2 x 512 GB SSD's. All drives was working far more than 50 000 hours. For single SSDs with two drives in a Raid0 for example, it even means writing only half of the data. (theoretically) In my mind the most Windows systems are that bad (mainstreamish) configurated that this and a Raid0 does not matter anyway. 😉

The Goose:

For the sort of money you`d need to spend for a system capable of running that many drives i dont think that any budget minded pc gamer will see that sort of performance until we get more lanes on consumer cpu/motherboards without having to compromise greatly on how many storage media you can run.

willgart:

nice, this will improve the FPS in games!!! no? ;-)

bluedevil:

Not really. If you have plenty of RAM then it won't affect fps but loading times. It might increase min fps and lower stuttering in situations where there is not enough RAM. More and more games are using texture streaming, this is true for a lot of open world games but as long as the data is in RAM before it is needed you should not see any difference in min fps or any stuttering. Nvidia RTX I/O would improve FPS in CPU limited scenarios as it offloads some of the work to the gpu. So far no game that i know of is using RTX I/O.

The Goose:

Is the rtx i/o a 3xxx thing or is it 2xxx compatible, given the poor supply of 3xxx is there any point in using this tech atm....its a bit of a pi$$ take.....heres a new feature for you....but you`ll have to wait until we make the gpu`s.

schmidtbag:

The only practical use-case of RAID0 is for heavily demanding sequential reads and writes. That being said, I find the use of it very niche, since with modern NVMe speeds, there aren't too many applications that have such heavy throughput. The only thing I can think of that might actually saturate a PCIe 4.0 M.2 drive is high-speed + high-res cameras. Otherwise, you'll actually likely lose performance if you RAID0 SSDs, due to the additional processing to stripe the data. If what you really need is just one gargantuan disk, JBOD is a better choice, since it is less complex and I think (I maybe mistaken) if a drive fails, you don't lose everything.