Cache - Is it a big difference between 16MB and 32MB?

TheSwede

TheSwede

TheSwede

Soldato
Joined
27 May 2007
Posts
3,336
Location
Front of the monitor
Hi again!

Another probably n00bish question.. but except being twice the size is it a big difference on a 16MB or a 32MB cache on a 1TB hard drive if they are going to be used as storage only?

Reason I am asking this is that I am probably going to buy another storage disk.. either the Samsung SingPoint F1 or the WD Caviar Green.. the difference in price is just a few quids and I have had a good experience with HD.. less so with the Samsungs in the past.. then again I am aware that it difference from batch to batch and I have read good posts about the F1's here.. But basically, would it make a big difference betgween a 16 or a 32MB cache? (Thats the only difference I can see between the two drives.. ohh and of course the make! :) )

Cheers
Tom
 
i'd actually like to know the same thing. i heard in another post that the seagate 500gb 32cache compared to sumsungs F1 500GB 16mb cache was practically the same. but sorry thats not really much help is it lol
 
TheSwede said:
uhmm making reads?!? I have to be honest and say I don't have a clue what that means! :eek:

Cheers
Tom
Click to expand...

Simply means reading the data from the hard drive as opposed to writing to it.

And for whatever it matters I think that advances in drive technology make a much greater difference than going from 16mb cache to 32mb cache or to put it another way if it were possible to add an extra 16mb cache to an older drive and get it to recognise it the speed difference would be negligible because it is still the same drive mechanically. There was a big jump in performance from 1mb to 2mb cache, an even greater jump from 2mb to 8mb, a middling jump from 8mb to 16mb (I only noticed in benchmarks that I ran and a large portion of that is down to a newer faster drive) and from what I've seen a fairly unimportant jump from 16mb to 32mb. I'd pick the fastest drive and ignore the cache issue.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Simply means reading the data from the hard drive as opposed to writing to it.

*snip*

I'd pick the fastest drive and ignore the cache issue.
Click to expand...

Thank you semi-pro waster! And which one of the two above would you pick? (I think the speed on them is the same.. 8.9 ms?)

dntbloodshot said:
But to answer the original question, for the purpose of storing large data files, cache is practically irelevant.
Click to expand...

Thank you dntbloodshot! Same question for you.. which one would you choose?

Cheers
Tom
 
The Samsung F1 offers good cost/performance ratio if you want a reasonably inexpensive but fast drive, the WD Caviar Green is slower but this is balanced out by the lower running costs and slightly quieter perfomance (1-2dBA@1m). As an alternative the Seagate 7200.11 1TB is around the same price and offers performance somewhere between the F1 and Caviar Green drives speed wise (but is apparently a few dBA noisier), however it comes with a 5 year warranty.
In regards to size of cache, you also have to bear in mind speed of cache and other design factors of hard drives. So does size matter? Maybe, but not as much as spindle speed and aureal density.

Summing up:-
Samsung F1 = Good cost/performance ratio & 3 year warranty.
WD Caviar Green = Less expensive to run, quieter & 3 year warranty.
Seagate 7200.11 = Slower than the F1, faster than the Caviar Green & 5 year warranty.
 
Cache increases have always followed come along with other increases and it's not something you can easily benchmark, HDTune/Tach are certainly useless. But just thinking about what the cache does it's not going to make much difference at all in the real world, certainly nothing you'd notice.
 
TheSwede said:
Thank you semi-pro waster! And which one of the two above would you pick? (I think the speed on them is the same.. 8.9 ms?)
Click to expand...

WD drive I take it? The access time is more like 13ms~, they just quote the seek.

@BlackBat, under 3w less power consumption is nothing and given that the GP's cost more in the first place a normal drive will cost you less.
 
I'd go with the Samsung, the cache will not make any significant difference but it is a slightly faster drive to begin with I think and a shade cheaper so it seems like a winner to me.
 
Yes a few watts here and there don't mean anything to me either, but then again you could argue that a few 100ms mean nothing for a hard drive used to store data. For what it's worth I have an F1 for appps, games, etc, (faster?) but use Seagate for backup (5 year warranty - safer?).
 
BlackBat said:
Yes a few watts here and there don't mean anything to me either, but then again you could argue that a few 100ms mean nothing for a hard drive used to store data. For what it's worth I have an F1 for appps, games, etc, (faster?) but use Seagate for backup (5 year warranty - safer?).
Click to expand...

You still have to read from a storage drive, I assure you that if the access times were 100ms - let alone a few hundred ms - you wouldn't like it. But you could still argue that but then why pay more when there are faster drives that cost less money?

Five year warranty doesn't make it safer, your data can still go at any time, you'll just get a replacement drive. So it can be an economical choice if you think you'll keep your drives that long. Most warranties are three years, three years ago I was buying 300GB drives, I left all of those behind a year ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom