Dealt.

Erm, sorry Wiz, but that's wrong. Most modern SSD's will get a 7.9 score. I have a Crucial C300 128GB on a Sata II port and that gets a 7.7 by itself. Admittedly, the guy was using 64GB SSD's, but the screenshots are from 2009, so that was old tech. A 64GB Crucial M4 on a Sata III port should have no problems getting a 7.9 

cool Tnaks

I just wanted to make sure it's good

oh I see how that could miss L e a d i n g 

but ya it was to show it wasn't Photoshopped

Thanks for bringing me up to date, Starcandy.  The link was the first I found so I went with it.  Next time, I'll research a bit further.

I can only wish I had an SSD but I'm happy with the performance I get from my rig so I can't justify the cost.

DisturbedComputer didn't you forget to do something b4 posting your pic?

 or is just me?   

security wise I mean.

or its no big deal, just askin.

I got a 5.9 and I'm stickin' to it.

over looked it thanks

This one's genuine....

Out of a possible 7.9, that's not too shabby....

Very nice system, but I can still out do you (nha, nha!):

The i7 920 is overclocked to 4 Ghz, and the primary hard disk is actually three 80 GB Intel X25-Ms G2 in RAID 0.

Yeah, but only by a little bit.....

My CPU and GPU are at factory stock settings, and my primary drive is singular.  However, if I were to set my SSD's to RAID and overclock, I could probably match or better those scores.  Thing is, I'm pretty happy with my performance and will probably not bother messing with things. 

And like yrag once said to me, if I wanted a faster rig I should, "buy a f**kin' bigger CPU."   That man sure has a way with words, hey?

Here's the score on my new laptop I picked up last month.

17.3 monitor, 2nd gen Intel i7-2720QM, 8 gigs ram, switchable graphics (ATI 2GDDR5 & Intel HD3000), 2 hard drives (1x160 GB SSD drive and 1x750 GB 7200 rpm sata), Blu ray player / DVD burner, 9 cell battery. 

It also has beats audio with a built in subwoofer. The sound is not to bad as is but it's really sweet hooked up to a set of Bose speakers. The only down side is it weighs in at 6.7 pounds.

Ah, but that'd be like saying you can't tell the difference when Spinal Tap go to 11....

Hehehe, it has all to do with the cost/performance ratio. I knew the i7 920 was cheap BUT massively overclockable - which is why I chose it.

As for putting the SSDs in RAID 0, that was the plan from the beginning. 240 GB is more than enough for a system drive, and SSDs, unlike hard disks, scale really well in RAID 0 configurations. Three SSD drives was also the sweet spot, since, at 700 MB/s sequential read speed, they fully saturated the SATA 2.0 bus.

Now I'm waiting for Ivy Bridge before moving to the world of SATA 3.0, PCIe 3.0 and USB 3.0.

Can I have your old one then, Jorge?...

Lol. Sorry, I always keep the last ex-PC as a backup system, and I don't think you would want my current backup system by then...

My current MoBo supports these protocols already... not that I'm able to take full advantage of it as yet.  While I have the SATA3 SSD, 2x SATA3 HDDs and a USB3 external drive, I've not got any PCIE 3 devices as yet... and probably won't have for a while to come, having already spent my allotted PC allowance for this year and most of next.

With regard to RAID 0, I could do that with my Corsair SATA3 120gb and my OCZ SATA2 120gb [which would marry my C: OS and D: Program Files], but, and it's a big but, would not the SATA2 drive bring back the SATA3 drive to the SATA2 protocol?  And if so, would it even matter if the SSDs in RAID formation are actually quicker than their original states when combined?

For RAID (but I'm not an expert on it, mind you) you need as closely matched drives as possible, ideal being identical drives. So yes, assuming it would work, that SATA2 drive would bring the whole thing down to SATA 2 speeds, as data is stripped and the faster drive then has to wait for the slower drive. It *might* still be faster than a single drive, but I wouldn't build a RAID 0 array on anything other than identical drives.

Yeah, that's what I thought, that the SATA2 would degrade the speed/performance of the SATA3.  Oh well, the setup I have now is pretty zippy, so I'll pass on the RAID until such time as I can use identical drives... preferably SATA3's.