Cache 16mb or 32mb

kieves1 · 19 Jul 2009 at 21:41

Hi all

Im just speccing new pc and just debating which hard drive to get.The budget is £45 .I was going to get a spinpoint f1 500Gb with 16mb of cache but was pointed to a WD Caviar Black 500Gb with 32mb cache.Will the extra 16mb make much difference but which would you recomend overall.

Thanks

kieves

Fahim · 19 Jul 2009 at 23:12

I would prefer WD Black 500GB with 32MB cache. First of all, SpinPoint F1 500GB is not the fastest 7200RPM drive, and it only has 16MB Cache. Secondly, WD Black is the fastest (AFAIK) 7200RPM SATA drive at the moment with higher throughput, and it has got 32MB Cache. Performance difference between 16MB and 32MB cache is not significant, but wd black with 16mb cache would be faster than samsung F1, comparatively speaking.

JeremyW · 19 Jul 2009 at 23:16

you also get a 5 year warranty with the WD black vs 3 year with the F1.

I'd go WD....

Greenlizard0 · 19 Jul 2009 at 23:37

With 5 year warranty on the Blacks which I'd suppose bench faster than the Samsungs it'd be WD.

Also I think the biggest benifets gained in terms of cache were from 2MB to 8MB, and then some to 16MB. I don't think 16 to 32 really will make it feel any better.

miniyazz · 20 Jul 2009 at 00:04

16-32mb cache = meh. wd black if you don't mind paying the bit more for it (I presume it's more expensive).

JeremyW · 20 Jul 2009 at 08:05

miniyazz said:
16-32mb cache = meh. wd black if you don't mind paying the bit more for it (I presume it's more expensive).

Same cost at the mo. with overclockers so it makes the decision easy, WD to go please!

kieves1 · 20 Jul 2009 at 08:15

WD all the way then.

Cheers

Fahim · 21 Jul 2009 at 01:44

Greenlizard0 said:
With 5 year warranty on the Blacks which I'd suppose bench faster than the Samsungs it'd be WD.

Also I think the biggest benifets gained in terms of cache were from 2MB to 8MB, and then some to 16MB. I don't think 16 to 32 really will make it feel any better.

I agree completely.