I'm getting impatient to set this new rig up, but a 2nd SATA drive (identical to the first) will not be here til Monday, and I have everything else to get started and it's still Saturday morning . . .If I installed XP Pro on my first new drive, can I then go back and create a Raid 0 when the new 2nd drive is installed? I plan to create two partitions in the 2-drive Raid 0 array, but not sure what happens if you start without Raid 0 then add the 2nd drive and attempt Raid 0.If this IS doable, should I leave the first drive as only ONE partition, then create a 2nd partition after the second drive is installed?Thanks for your help,Noel

Why do you want to go with RAID 0 and then partition the RAID 0 array? RAID 0 does nothing for gaming performance. You are better off using two drives one for your OS and one for FSX.

I run two 80gig satas in raid 0 for gaming. Generally when you add the new drive and go in to create the R0 array, all data on both drives will be lost. You could get around this by taking an image of the current drive (Ghosting) and then loading the image back on to the new array once it is done. However, this will probably take as long as a reinstall to set up so it isn`t worth bothering with.Interesting to see what the other poster is saying about R0 being of no benefit. I have tried 2 drives unraided, r0 r5 and raid 10 and r0 seems to be the best place for me.CheersJames

>Why do you want to go with RAID 0 and then partition the RAID>0 array? Because I plan to install Vista 64 in a dual boot configuration sometime soon.>RAID 0 does nothing for gaming performance. You are better>off using two drives one for your OS and one for FSX.Yes, I actually was fully aware of this. I would be doing it to speed up load times, for example when flights are initializing, between levels in FPS's, boot time? Mainly it is just to take advantage of the hardware since it really doesn't cost any more to do it. I have had FS9 on another drive, but couldn't tell you if it helped or hurt. I'm guessing top-end hardware nowadays reduces the value of this strategy in any case, since seek times, CPU utilization, and so forth have improved enough to more than offset the system load that comes from having the OS on one drive and app on another. Further, correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think Windows would pretty much be loaded into memory to operate the system, then FS.x would simply be another application running on a drive that isn't all that busy after doing it windows initialization. I think this is especially true when you run lean boots with extraneous processes and services trimmed away.

Nope. Ya gotta wait for the other drive. . . . or get the 500 coming. Then when you're ready to raid 'em up, image the single 250 setup to the 500, raid the two 250s, format the new 500 raid, then restore the image back to the new raid. It'd be good practice.

Sam . . . HELP!#$*^#$(@^I am trying to install XP on the SATA, and tho it shows up in the BIOS, AND shows up in Device Manager, it does not show up in Explorer. I went ahead just to test out the new rig and installed XP on my cheetah 73gb no problem. When I go to Disk Management, it does not appear there. I also disconnect my cheetah XP install so all I had was a virgin .11 showing up in the BIOS, but when I try to install a new XP install on it, it does not show up as a drive to install to.From the ASUS P5E manual, I can't tell if I should be set up in the BIOS, for NON-raid, as IDE or AHCI. I tried making a floppy and loading drivers ("S") for AHCI after changing the .11 to ACHI in the BIOS, but still XP install does not show it has a drive to install XP to. And this is with the SATA as the ONLY HDD showing up in the BIOS since the SCSI's were disconnected.Either there is something wrong with this .11 drive, or I am missing something in how to set this thing up for a simple SATA drive, no raid.Thoughts? The hardware's been fine so far, but this simple install to a SATA drive has taken HOURS of trial and error!.Help!!!Thanks Sam and whomever else can chime in . . .

For non-raid ops, set the SATA drives to IDE in the bios. (Yes, I know. To everyone but Asus, IDE means those old ribbon cable drives, but here we are). Also, 4 out of the 6 mobo SATA headers are bootable, 2 are not. Check the manual. Use the bootables. If you want play, check it out as a 2nd drive with the cat. Go to the Seagate site and get their Diskwizard setup software. Keep it around. It's a handy tool. Seagate uses the actual Acronis clone software. There's no need to buy Acronis to get this drive cloning function. It's free to anyone that owns a seagate drive . . . and a 5 year warranty to boot. http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/support/downloads/If the cat is installed with a good XP install, diskwizard will (might) prompt to setup the new drive as the "New" boot drive (might it recognize the SCSI controller? Maybe, maybe not). If it asks, say yes. It will format, then clone the cat to the SATA. On the way back, go into bios and select the SATA as the boot drive. You're up.If it won't clone off the cat, format the drive using seagates diskwizard. This will let it show as a data drive with a boot off the cat. Get HDTune and run benchmarks with the cat and your new -11. http://www.hdtune.com/You can begin to appreciate this new era of price/performance efficiency.

Dunno Sam, this doesn't seem right. I am booting to the cheetah right now, so I can type this SOS call! I tried connecting the .11 and as I say, it shows up in the BIOS just fine, but when I get to Windows, it is not in Disk Management, nor Explorer. It IS in Device Manager. For this trial I wasn't trying to boot so the idea of needing to connect to a bootable header--how does that come into play? The second .11 is coming tomorrow so I will try to connect it and see if the same issue is happening, or if the first drive that arrived is defective. Very weird, and very unintuitive. I have added drives, scsi and ATA, for 20y to my various PCs, with no problems. I wonder if the drive isn't hosed somehow. Guess I'll find out tomorrow.Cheers,NoelOY! trying FS9 out--no AA on this wonder card! Insanely unsmooth upgrade. At least the BIOS flash went well and the QX is running well.

Ah, taint nothin'. Mine was messed up so bad after the 1st couple of tries I had to RMA the mobo. You haven't used an ICH (integrated host controller) in a while. BTW, we're up to ICH9 these days. Ohh lala. There's nothing institutive about Anything to do with a computer. There's only what we're used to. The cat came right up? See?! If you are still online, also download Seagate's SeaTools.Physically attach to a bootable SATA header. It's in the manual. Those SATA connectors sockets are not very rugged. Careful. They come loose with a breath . . . and can physically break."IDE" in the biosBoot from the Seagate wizard disk. Format. Clone if possible or Install XP if it'll go.If still nogo, boot from Seatools. That'll check the disk.

OK, don't know how this happened but, put the new SATA that arrived yesterday--XP recognized the drive straight away. I may have missed a step, not seen the alledgedly defunct first SATA in Disk Management but was sure I didn't see it. When I successfully partitioned the 2nd SATA, the first one showed up in Disk Management--or as I say, perhaps I just didn't see it and thought I'd looked. Thanks for staying with me on this. One question tho Sam: I used HDTach n Tune and the access time for the .11's is pretty poor: 14.8ms? The transfer rate is great, in fact comparable to the cheetah. Now, would Raid 0 slow down the access time even more? All is well so far. I think the IQ issue I referred to may be ok and may just be a difference I need to adjust to, as the 8800GT is def plenty potent for the $$.I am using the retail HSF, NO designer thermal paste. Tell me Sam, what's your take on this: with all the wonderful engineers at Intel, do you think they wouldn't want to optimize a thermal solution by just using a little . . . Arctic Silver? The only explanation is that Intel wants to spend more $$ on a complex HSF versus a slightly cheaper soln with better paste in order to lower the thermal perf and raise the manufacturing cost? Makes no sense whatsoever. I was going to scrape off the stock stuff in favor of designer paste but decided this primarily an urban legend. I am using BIOS 0501 (is supposed to report CPU temp correctly vs 5102), and at idle, with just an open case, temps are in the high 30's. Very cool! The 8800GT is at about 55C--at idle. I ran the QX at 3.6GHz for just a quick check, and all was well. The super cooler AC ducting really works well, so I'm guessing I'll get lucky and get the QX to 4GHz without much difficulty. I installed 4GB of Mushkin and all is well there too. Ran up the FSB to 400 just to see how that went and all was well. You said this before, but I'm still not clear: is there NO advantage to using a faster FSB as far as video perf goes for example? Less latency? Smoother? Just not quite clear on that.

Raid access rates will be comparable to single drive access rates. Look at the rate during the 1st 20% of the HDtune run. That's where your data's gonna be. Download Rivatuner. With a tweak or 2, that 8800 will run with a GTX. 90C is normal tenp.There is So much temperature headroom, Intel can afford to 'not care the least.' So then, why don't they optimize their CPUs? 'Cuse they don't want to. Untapped (intentionally derated) performance is money in the bank. When AMD comes out with something (anything), Intel just turns the crank a bit more on their Already Capable product. That's what we're doing here. Pre-turning that crank. If you are going to blow 40F air on it, who cares. Use toothpaste.There is absolutely No FSB bottleneck at even a 200MHZ FSB speed. Actually a Slower FSB will give better performance. Since you have an unlocked multi, a 266 FSB is probably where you're gonna end up. Sounds like you want to play. We'll get to that later.

Much obliged and LOL when I read Use toothpaste! What brand do you recommend?Still, I question the designer paste idea anyway. It really makes no sense that a $3 tube of goo outperforms the intel stock material. There is really no point in not using a superior interface goo that I can see. If Intel can afford not to care the least, why with the very specific thermal specs, very nice HSF designs and so forth. As you say, it's moot anyway. I have yet to turn the AC on, i just use the lowest speed in the fan only mode and it still performs really well, even with some load.Thanks on the FSB speed.One other quickie: I have yet to install the other 4gb of mushram. Will there be any problems if I just install them, ie will it mess anything up in my XP install?

Actually, thermal paste makes quite a difference, but why would a manafacturer increase their direct cost on an upgrade its finished good did not need? "But its only pennies," we confound. Ans: Contribution Margin is Measured in pennies. This is Intel's Ultimate performance metric. All this CPU stuff is just a vehicle to that end. But to us, it's important. Quite the big deal on the O/C community. Do a Google search on 'Thermal Paste Roundup.' 16,400 hits in .15 seconds! I went from the "smear" to the "dollip" method of goo application. Sure didn't seem intuitive, but it worked. Picked up a couple of degrees.Sure stick 'em in. If it catches fire, run ~!

Yeah I guess. I have used it and maybe picked up a few degrees on my northwood. It's still an odd conclusion because if they could go to 2 cents of goop and save 30 cents of parts to meet their thermal spec, why not? OMG I can't believe how much it is taking to reload everything. And I had to cause I have stuff in multiple drives. I've saved it all and copied where possible, including my entire FS9 installation, but geez this will take . . . 25h!I have use Powerstrip for years n years. It doesn't like the 8800GT--hot keys to adjust gamma OTF won't work. I will try Riva n see if there is a gamma adjust utility there . . .

That's just what I run into. It takes weeks. I figure $100/40hrs(+) is not much of a payday. That Seagate (downloadable) setup disk has the Acronis clone tool. Lots of cool new stuff to try out. A whole new world has evolved.