I think the problem with the article is that it gives no benchmarks that apply to disk access.There could be a problem with the setup, but if there was how could you tell? "Typical Desktop Use" is statement that applies to many benchmarks that are MS based office applications and in general office use.Not that that is a bad thing but it really doesn't apply to a home user that doesn't own any office applications and might use their computer for video or large file transfers.A more useful article is located
here .It also is related to typical desktop use,but I believe them to be a little more informed about the testing methods they use.I also believe that their conclusion was more accurate.
According to the scores produced there was little difference between the raptor and the dx9 that was benched. Some, but not enough to justify the expense of a single raptor.I feel you would be hard pressed to convince a raptor user that his disk is less than 10% faster than a 7200 RPM drive.The only place the raptors were noticeably faster were the Ipeak disk tests.
The article actually raised more questions for me than it answered.Why did they only use sp1 with no further updates when a "typical desktop user" would have all available updates installed? What size partition was used in each setup and would it affect the outcome? Was the partition fully defragged before each of the tests were run or at least between each drive change? Was the page-file optimized for the amount of ram or was Windows left in charge? What stripe size was used? Was it a small one for the OS or was the raid array in fact full of holes?The fact is all of the above could have an impact on the outcome.It would only be a matter of how much.The fact That I have these questions makes me think that the author either did this intentionally or is no expert on the subject.
if you were to ask a raid0 user if they thought their array was faster than a single disk, their answer would be; No sir,I know it is.I can see and feel a difference.Raptors may or may not perform differently in raid0 than a 7200 rpm drive.They would surely produce different results with another raid0 solution(PCI card or chip-set).
Albeit an interesting read, I would not make a buying decision on an article so vastly short on important information.I feel the article was written for the average user not the folks here, and in that respect the author is right on.Raid0 would be of little use to the average joe and a single raptor would be a more effective bang for his buck.