32mb cache
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,140
- Location
- Cotswolds
dont worry fox, the 7200.11's cache isnt actually at 32mb at the moment lol
Very annoying, but I find it faster anyway due to it being newer, not sure what affect cache has on the overall speed of the drive.
Very annoying, but I find it faster anyway due to it being newer, not sure what affect cache has on the overall speed of the drive.
The firmware problem on the 7200.11s only affects certain batches of certain models of the drives. For those which do ship with the duff firmware there is an update available from Seagate which fixes the problem.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-033-HI&groupid=701&catid=14&subcat=940
will this drive be faster than the 16cache variations? I kinda wanna buy it.
sick
will this drive be faster than the 16cache variations? I kinda wanna buy it.
sick
The speed of a drive is determined more by the density of the data on the platters than the size of the cache. The Hitachis are lagging behind in the 3.5" arena (their 2.5" drives are the pick of the bunch mind) when it comes to packing data onto the platters and as a result the 750Gb offerings from the other manufacturers are quicker at the moment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 10,352
- Location
- Stoke
The AAKS is fine. It's not like you're in a hugely data intensive environment anyway.
I made a mistake, I meant this one
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-054-SA&groupid=701&catid=14&subcat=940
The Samsung's an odd one, rather than shortstroking the 333Gb platters from the 1Tb F1 which would have produced the fastest (on average) 7200rpm drive available Samsung have gone for the 250Gb platters from the S series. Not that that's a bad thing of course, as a result it's up there with the Seagate as the fastest 750Gb you can get.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,140
- Location
- Cotswolds
yeah i flashed my drive and its now at the latest AD14 BIOS but in Sanda and other benchmarks it still says 0Kb Buffer/Cache
Does that mean there isnt any cache at all or just that the software cannot detect it?
Depends what you mean by faster. Generally a faster spindle speed will allow the drive to access data which is spread across the disk faster, a higher data density will allow the drive to access sequential data faster.
Cache on the other hand, when used correctly can make it seem like the drive is doing both of the above. The caching algorithms on the drive will basically guess, based on requests from the host PC, what the user is going to want next and read that data as well as the actual requests in the hope that the next read can be served from the faster cache RAM than the drive itself. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. The more cache RAM on a drive the more possible "next requests" can be stored, however as the cache gets bigger the more wrong guesses end up in the cache too. As a result you do get dminishing returns as the cache gets bigger.
The quality of the cache algorithms makes a big difference to real world performance, Hitachi for example always seem to punch above their weight in real world tests where their caching technology goes some way to aleviating their lower sustained read speeds.
