My preference would be option B, but the difference is marginal, because this system is hampered by the ATI card anyway, and using crossfire will not help at all. Your best bet to improve performance is to get 16 GB memory and use a nVidia GTX 460+ card.
+1 on all Harm said
Hey Harm, thanks for the response.
First of all, I did choose the ATI GPU because of the benchmarks I saw on internet, BUT i didn't know about the CUDA Acceleration Technology. So, I will probably buy a nVidia GTX460, since it is at the same price level, but seems to have a better performance with Premiere and AfterEffects. =)
But the question is about HDDs, so let's get to it.
I read in the forum that it doesn't make a big difference to have RAID 0 HDDs or even use the SATA III drives foe video editing, because the system doesn't even use the whole bandwith of the SATA II technology.
But, in another question, I read that it depends on the type of files you are working with. I have a Canon 550D, so it records in 330MB/min (about 45MB/s) in 1080/24p, using the h.264 codec (in *.mov files). Those are the files I will edit and I want to burn Blu-Ray disks with my movies.
That said, my doubts are:
A) Should I invest on SATA III disks for better performance? Will I take any advantage of the 6Gb/s bandwidth, or the only difference will be the 64MB cache?
B) Is it better to have a faster C: drive?
I am asking that to get a better use of my investment. If the SATA III disks won't give me any difference on performance, I could get some SATA II disks and then use that money to buy more RAM - or faster RAM, like 2000MHz.
if buying new you would want the WD Black with 64 meg cache sata 600 (or other 64meg cache)
while they wont be any faster now (300 vs 600) the added cache is nice
the next gen of sata controller may allow for faster speeds. (take advantage of Sata 600)
increasing C drive speeds is pointless
ram past 1600 is also pointless
your speed increase will come from raid 0 sets