Looking for advice about using this card My link for my new build. Will be using the following HD's 2 x WD Vraptor 450(non raid depending on what I find out from this post), 1x WD 1TB BLK SATA6, 1 X Crucial ssd 256. I know for sure that the 1TB HD will be used for storage, but not really sure how I'm gonna use the Vraptors & SSD. Will I get better proformance out of the SSD on the controller or Vraptors in a RAID 0 on the controller card. The rest of my computer build consist of the following:ASUS RAMPAGE III EXTREMECORE i7 980XCORSAIR DOMINATOR GT6GB2000C8EVGA GTX 580 SCENERMAX+85 1050SILVERSTONE TJ11Any and all advice would be appreciated!

To my knowledge (you need confirm with LSI) I do not think any of their cards support TRIM.You should also get the battery backup.I also cannot guarantee compatibility with your MB, although likely ok.Setup depends on what I am using my system for. If it was FSX specific or video editing, Photoshop large files and such I would Raid the two Vraps. If not I would not Raid.I would put the OS on the SSD and on the MB ICH controller, (because of lack of TRIM on controller Card).I would put other three drives on the Controller as independent drives. If I was Raiding I would still put the three non-ssd drives on the Controller.If you Raid you will want a 256-block and 64-cluster size for FSX and large files. There are other 3Ware settings you will need setup for performance if you get that card, just post questions for help.My preference is for all SSD or all mechanical drives, it gets complicated when you start mixing the two.I will tell you right now short of significantly faster load times that SSD won’t be 1-frame faster than two Vraps on that Controller card.If I was starting fresh with a pocket of cash a large Pcie-SSD would be the way to go.

Why the 980x? The 990x is available now.You can also opt for the i7 2600K. Many users have successfully reached 5ghz on air.Use one fast SSD for OS and one large & fast SSD for FSX. You can use 1 TB for other stuff and back-ups etc.A good cooler is essential for stable OC.

Why the 980x? The 990x is available now.You can also opt for the i7 2600K. Many users have successfully reached 5ghz on air.Use one fast SSD for OS and one large & fast SSD for FSX. You can use 1 TB for other stuff and back-ups etc.A good cooler is essential for stable OC.

I went with the 980x cause I got a great deal on it plus I truly believe that the 6 cores will help out more when you have alot of add-ons & eyecandy max'd like I want to run FSX. As far as a cooler goes, i'm gonna be using the H70 and if I'm not satified with the H70 I'll opt for the Thermaright Arrow or Noctua D14.I guess I'll run the OS on the WD 1TB SATA6, CRUCIAL SSD 256 fsx, WD Vraptor 450 FS9. I'll run both WD HD of the controller card and see how it goes.

Good choice.I'm going with the 990x. It's an easy upgrade for me.After adding up the numbers, for just a little more money I'll have 2 more cores, and a great processor.I'm excited. My GTX 580 is on its way.

I went with the 980x cause I got a great deal on it plus I truly believe that the 6 cores will help out more when you have alot of add-ons & eyecandy max'd like I want to run FSX. As far as a cooler goes, i'm gonna be using the H70 and if I'm not satified with the H70 I'll opt for the Thermaright Arrow or Noctua D14.I guess I'll run the OS on the WD 1TB SATA6, CRUCIAL SSD 256 fsx, WD Vraptor 450 FS9. I'll run both WD HD of the controller card and see how it goes.

Just so you know you won't get 1-extra frame out of putting FSX on that SSD. If you put your OS on it at least you will enjoy faster Windows start-up as opposed to faster FSX start-up. Your call but I rather my system boot quicker and wait for FSX.

That's why I recommend an SSD for both OS and FSX.The SSD for OS does not have to be big and they are very affordable.

Just so you know you won't get 1-extra frame out of putting FSX on that SSD. If you put your OS on it at least you will enjoy faster Windows start-up as opposed to faster FSX start-up. Your call but I rather my system boot quicker and wait for FSX.

Gary I'm aware about the expectations of using a SSD with FSX, my reasoning is to help load times and in game smoothness. As I mentioned earlier, I have alot of addons and with my current sys FSX is slow to load. This is also my reasoning for opting for the 980x instead the SB, cause of the two extra cores. I'm not really concerned about the OS load time, but I imagine that I should get some help there using the 3ware 9750.

Gary I'm aware about the expectations of using a SSD with FSX, my reasoning is to help load times and in game smoothness. As I mentioned earlier, I have alot of addons and with my current sys FSX is slow to load. This is also my reasoning for opting for the 980x instead the SB, cause of the two extra cores. I'm not really concerned about the OS load time, but I imagine that I should get some help there using the 3ware 9750.

The SSD will do nothing for FSX smoothness, and your controller card will do nothing for improving load times, and the additional cores of the 980 won't show you anything over a 2600.Not trying to burst your bubble here you do what you want if it makes you happy that is all that matters. I just want to make sure you and others that may read this post understand the reality of the choices being made.I have used a professional controller card for years and still do. The only thing it does is offload CPU cycles and improve transfer rates. Nothing for access time (actually worst) which is the factor that determines how fast a program loads or starts, and really only the off-loading of CPU cycles that adds smoothness to FSX not the transfer rates specifically.Here are HD Tune results where the user shows a comparison of a 600GB Vrap on and off a 9750 card note the access times http://www.simforums.com/forums/another-3ware-question_topic37098_post218564.html#218564Here is one of the best SSD to mechanical drive comparisons I have ever read http://forum.avsim.net/topic/329652-the-fsx-stutter-benchmark-storage-edition/page__view__findpost__p__1944468by Dazz in post#9 zero frame increase zero smoothness improvement.

The SSD will do nothing for FSX smoothness, and your controller card will do nothing for improving load times, and the additional cores of the 980 won't show you anything over a 2600.Not trying to burst your bubble here you do what you want if it makes you happy that is all that matters. I just want to make sure you and others that may read this post understand the reality of the choices being made.I have used a professional controller card for years and still do. The only thing it does is offload CPU cycles and improve transfer rates. Nothing for access time (actually worst) which is the factor that determines how fast a program loads or starts, and really only the off-loading of CPU cycles that adds smoothness to FSX not the transfer rates specifically.Here are HD Tune results where the user shows a comparison of a 600GB Vrap on and off a 9750 card note the access times http://www.simforums.com/forums/another-3ware-question_topic37098_post218564.html#218564Here is one of the best SSD to mechanical drive comparisons I have ever read http://forum.avsim.net/topic/329652-the-fsx-stutter-benchmark-storage-edition/page__view__findpost__p__1944468by Dazz in post#9 zero frame increase zero smoothness improvement.

Very good info Gary that's why I always look to forums like this to try and educate myself. I reviewed those links you provided and found them very usefull but they are synthetic, a true comparison for me would be some actual in game FSX testing such as loading FSX with a controller card and W/O, mechanical HD vs SSD plus so some sort of in game test in a dense area using a common payware aircraft & scenery. That to me is a more reliable benchmark test.

Very good info Gary that's why I always look to forums like this to try and educate myself. I reviewed those links you provided and found them very usefull but they are synthetic, a true comparison for me would be some actual in game FSX testing such as loading FSX with a controller card and W/O, mechanical HD vs SSD plus so some sort of in game test in a dense area using a common payware aircraft & scenery. That to me is a more reliable benchmark test.

The problem with what you seek is a favour for emotional response to that of a factual one. Not too long ago most people believed the world was flat, factually we know today that isn't true.I am not here to sell you anything, it sounds like you came with preconceived notiations of what you were going to do and why. Have at it.I believe in what I experiance as well but I believe much more strongly when I can support my emotions in fact.P.S. The SSD drive comparison is not synthetic it was made using FSX. That is why it is the best comparsion for FS users ever. Very powerful and lays all the emotion to rest.

The thing is that I'm a lazy bum and didn't really post all the info about the test that I did post in the memory thread, but bank1, that was tested using the PMDG744, GEX, UTX, REX2, MyTrafficX, in UK2000's London Heathrow and sliders maxed

The problem with what you seek is a favour for emotional response to that of a factual one. Not too long ago most people believed the world was flat, factually we know today that isn't true.I am not here to sell you anything, it sounds like you came with preconceived notiations of what you were going to do and why. Have at it.I believe in what I experiance as well but I believe much more strongly when I can support my emotions in fact.P.S. The SSD drive comparison is not synthetic it was made using FSX. That is why it is the best comparsion for FS users ever. Very powerful and lays all the emotion to rest.

Although FS isn't "smoother" on an SSD, the big shudders and stutters that I used to see, even on a vRaptor, when a complex airport full of AI first comes into the sim's view are much more subtle. AI airplanes seem to spawn considerably quicker as well. I guess that's smoothness of a sort.My SSDs also make the chore of running defrags on my FS drives a distant memory. I run a TRIM utility on them once a week--takes 30 seconds to do (I use Vista--Win 7 does it automatically).Not having two 10,000 RPM drives clacking around is another nice plus. The SSDs also don't generate the kind of heat the HDDs do--that and their small size simplifies builds somewhat (little need to worry about airflow).Last, FS load times 10x faster than my vRaptors are a big deal, especially for those of us who tinker incessantly. SSDs are not a panacea for all of FS' ills, but I do like having 'em. Just as a fast-accelerating Porsche won't get you to work much faster on city streets than a Ford Explorer...there's still something to be said for driving the Porsche if you can afford it.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Although FS isn't "smoother" on an SSD, the big shudders and stutters that I used to see, even on a vRaptor, when a complex airport full of AI first comes into the sim's view are much more subtle. AI airplanes seem to spawn considerably quicker as well. I guess that's smoothness of a sort.My SSDs also make the chore of running defrags on my FS drives a distant memory. I run a TRIM utility on them once a week--takes 30 seconds to do (I use Vista--Win 7 does it automatically).Not having two 10,000 RPM drives clacking around is another nice plus. The SSDs also don't generate the kind of heat the HDDs do--that and their small size simplifies builds somewhat (little need to worry about airflow).Last, FS load times 10x faster than my vRaptors are a big deal, especially for those of us who tinker incessantly. SSDs are not a panacea for all of FS' ills, but I do like having 'em. Just as a fast-accelerating Porsche won't get you to work much faster on city streets than a Ford Explorer...there's still something to be said for driving the Porsche if you can afford it.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Hi Bob, no contest from me that SSD's are crème de la crème but that was not subject of the original question asked and the bases for all of my responses respecting SSD usage following. The advantages of SSD use you have covered well. However use of an SSD on a controller card would negate TRIM and an alternate method [if TRIM is even required (not saying it is not, more of a question), add garbage collection] need be found. My responses were also made ahead of Dario's fine SSD comparison. In retro spec if a 256GB SSD was sufficient size to hold FSX and the OS I would probably have just recommended that he do that. Again that was not topic of discussion. I still think at the end of the day we are splitting hairs over an antiquated and bumpy FSX in pursuit of nirvana which I am convinced does not exist.I think you would agree in general terms an SSD is the last place you should spend money with respect to system performance but if you have the donuts and seek the very best then by all means SSD is the way to go, there are advantages. I was over exuberant in my implications that SSD offered zero advantages but that was in strict keeping to the topic originally asked and not intended as a general statement.

+100.3755237 Gary