Well, mine is pushing 6 years old, but it outperforms your assembly of stuff because its suited to my needs.
The reason is right here:
Goodness! You have less than 1TB of total storage, and without any data redundancy? I have over 4TB now...roughly 6x-7x more than you.
So how do we determine who 'won' and who 'lost'?
YMMV. I enjoy reality instead: I have roughly 25,000 of my original copyrighted images, stored redundantly, although the total would be 10-15K higher if I had all of my current film scanned too.
Thus, for my needs, data storage trumps game playing.
And gosh golly gee, we find that we're all different, so we naturally have different definitions of what is "Better", according to our needs.
-hh
FFS its true, mac people really cant play games
you realize Raid 0 is for speed right? and if my HDDs die with my games on them,.......... um who cares? all my games are on CDs (legally or i couldnt play them online) i prefer my games to load as quick as possible, i dont really care about redundancy.
i said this is a GAMING MACHINE, im not sure how else to say it, its not a NAS, its not a SAN, its not an HTPC, its not a Desktop, its not a workstation, its not some kind of rendering farm. >> GAMING PC <<
that being said i do have a Desktop, HTPC, NAS, guest computer, mobile workstation, and file server at home.
HTPC has all my movies and shows on it, 2TB raid 5 (3x 1TB Seagate F1 drives)
my NAS is Raid 0+1 for storeing pictures documents and other crap.
my desktop just has a 120GB for email and msn
my work laptop has 160 but all it runs if VMWARE machines for testing at work
my file server has 1TB for applications and temporary storge. (ill admit its for bit torrent as well)
my pictures are redundant across all computers, all machines sync with the NAS, so if i lose 5 computers at the same time, non-replacable data is still safe on 1 of the machines.
looks like i got you beat