16mb vs 32mb cache?

lamps · 2 Apr 2009 at 14:44

WHen it comes down to mainly gaming, does a bigger cache make much of a differance? i dont really need a big harddrive, so was planning on getting a lowish gig hdd with 16mb cache, if i wanted 32mb id have to get at least 500 gig.

Basically how much of a differance is there between the 2 in terms of gaming?

Beerbaron · 2 Apr 2009 at 14:46

you'll probably only notice the difference if you are moving big files

lamps · 2 Apr 2009 at 14:55

thanks

rpstewart · 2 Apr 2009 at 16:47

Beerbaron said:
you'll probably only notice the difference if you are moving big files

Cache has nothing to do with the transfer rate of large files. It holds a collection of data blocks which the drive thinks *might* be required next. All a larger cache does is hold more potential cache hits (and usually as a result more cache misses). As a result a larger cache will be of benefit when dealing with random small requests, requests for large amounts of sequential data will come directly off the disk and bypass the cache.

Blackout · 2 Apr 2009 at 17:13

rpstewart you are the font of all HD knowledge!

Now for newbs like me, what sort of things would require random small requests? Am guessing things like an OS install? So if that is right (and it probably isn't) does that mean a larger cache would speed up a boot time (for example, or load games a bit quicker).

Duke · 2 Apr 2009 at 17:24

There was a big gain from going 2mb to 8mb and a bit going to 16mb, but after that there isn't a very much noticeable difference to 32mb.

I'd go for a Samsung F1 320GB (322HJ off the top of my head). It is single platter and is very quick & cool running.

setter · 2 Apr 2009 at 17:45

I installed one of the samsung F1 320GB last week and as Duke says, it does run very cool and a lot quieter than my western digital caviar 250GB.

Samsung f1

Western digital caviar

CurlyWhirly · 2 Apr 2009 at 19:56

rpstewart said:
Cache has nothing to do with the transfer rate of large files. It holds a collection of data blocks which the drive thinks *might* be required next. All a larger cache does is hold more potential cache hits (and usually as a result more cache misses). As a result a larger cache will be of benefit when dealing with random small requests, requests for large amounts of sequential data will come directly off the disk and bypass the cache.

I have 'Write caching to disk' and 'Advanced performance' options disabled on my hard drive due to corruption worries.

Does this mean that the 32 MB of cache isn't used on my Samsung HD103UJ ?

p.s. what I mean is does reading the cache still work as opposed to writing to it?

rpstewart · 2 Apr 2009 at 21:13

Those are OS functions and have nothing to do with the cache on the drive itself. The drive cache is maintained solely by the firmware on the drive.

CurlyWhirly · 4 Apr 2009 at 00:32

rpstewart said:
Those are OS functions and have nothing to do with the cache on the drive itself. The drive cache is maintained solely by the firmware on the drive.

Oh thanks for that