Ah I see.

Thanks for mentioning it. I'll keep it in mind to check it out if I'm ever in the market for SSDs again.

I've been running a 240gig Ocz Ibiz for my Operating System & a 240gig Ocz Revodrive for games (both PCIE) for a year with no problems.

But aside from loading & saving, I don't think they help your games at all.

Oh no, they are awesome for gaming, you boot your OS off of it if you can.

I bought a 80GB Intel 320 series over the holidays (with a 80 USD rebate, so it was 80 USD for me) and I have this to say: I should have gotten the 120 for 120 USD and I'm a bit miffed my mobo has 6 SATA 3 ports, the 320 series is SATA 3, and I cannot boot off a SATA 3 port on my mobo (I'm 90% certain this is my mobo's fault). I spent a lot of money on one of the highest end mobo's on the market. It has 6 SATA 3 ports and only 4 SATA 2 ports, this should have been a no brainer, instead it's kind of frustrating,

Have you looked for a bios update?
Or a firmware update if it is a Marvell controller?

That's pretty much what I was assuming I needed to wait for. Mobo is the Z68 Extreme7 Gen3, it's pretty insane otherwise and I assume this is a BIOS limitation rather than actual hardware (look at the crap they did here: http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.asp?Model=Z68%20Extreme7%20Gen3 ) that channel for the third card is huge, I don't know anyone doing that and I know some insane computer geeks.

I haven't been following new motherboards as closely as I used to, but on a quick look around I can't see anyone else with this problem.
In fact ASRock recommend using the Intel sata 3 for your boot drive.
Did you try disabling the ASRock controller while you got it setup?

I couldn't even get Windows to install on it, the BIOS wasn't reporting it while it was plugged into the SATA 3 port. I installed using SATA 2, moved it around to multiple ports, but moving it to a SATA 3 port makes the BIOS not even report it as a bootable drive. It's seriously weird, I'm sure a bit of time searching would lead me to the source of the problem, I have trouble keeping up with my laundry though;)

The first thing I noticed was that it recorded CPU usage as -1% - which makes me instantly not trust whatever it says :P

What you got behind that RAID0?

I only use RAID1 at the moment because I like the redundancy. I only want to know a drive has failed because the system tells me it has, not because it has gone down. Don't have enough drives for RAID5.. though I am going to try a 2 drive RAID1+0 at some point to see how that performs (probably terribly, especially on writes).

If you got a board with one of the Marvell SATA3 controllers, those are as buggy as a cheap motel room.

This thread has some hints for getting a Marvell controller to work right:

http://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?3245-How-to-Enable-amp-Configure-SATA3-RAID-on-the-Rampage-III-Black-Edition-Marvell-9182

There's lots of other information about working with these controllers to be had on ASUS forums, too. Also try the Gigabyte forums. And note that ASUS's support of these controllers is such a Charlie Foxtrot (including not having drivers for the chip versions on the motherboard) that some ASUS users had to go get drivers from Gigabyte.

How's that even possible? A RAID1 requires at least two drives, and a RAID0 the same - a RAID10, by extension, requires at least 4 (or above, exact number depends on how the array is set up), seeing how it's two RAID0'd RAID1s (at its most simple configuration).

Split each disk into 2 parts to create "4 drives" :)

Not sure what that would benefit you, unless you're just doing it to play with the technology. You need separate physical drives on separate controllers to get any advantage.

I think the reason why it may give a small advantage is because any given sector is only, at maximum, half a platter away from the current head position of one of the drives - which would improve seek times.

But yes.. it's mainly just to play :)