If you read the article the diagrams answer your question. RAID has nothing to do with the overhead of drives, it's purpose is to introduce parallel drive accesses and/or mirroring. These effects are shown in the benchmark figures from the link.

Naively, I can't see right away what benefit you get from RAID 0 when you are using SSDs anyway. I thought the point of RAID 0 was to avoid the overhead of seeking and rotational delays - which SSDs don't have, surely?

Still, performance doesn't often lie very much. It would be nice to know what difference adding RAID 0 makes compared to the equivalent non-RAID setup.

Quote form the site,
"We are pairing four Corsair P256 with the Intel ICH10R Southbridge to see how far we can push it and then for good measure we’ll include the Highpoint RocketRAID 4310 RAID card to see if we can unlock more performance"

Intel ICH10R Southbridge, I thought that was common to most users not? Besides, people whom don't buy deluxe motherboards or avoid Intel for the cost won't have to deal with it anyway as they wouldn't dare spend that much money on SSD drives in the first place.

A great article about SSD in raid that mentions nothing about increased wear or decreased performance due to wear, and goes so far to test these fast little beasties on an "average" brand raid card, woohoo.

Fruit-Themed might be one thing, but having never found the urge to actually lick one of their computers, I'll have to take your word for that.

these products are now available to all oil tycoons and gold diggers on production of a bank statement