8Mb or 2Mb cache?

[Agent_Embryo]

Is it worth it getting a "special edition" drive with 8Mb cache instead of the cheaper 2Mb cache version of the drive? Is the performance better, or is this a simple marqueting ploy?

[iNeb]

I got a 100GB 8MB cache 8200RPM hard drive from WD

I see no difference between that and my old 40GB 5200RPM 2MB cache


Bigger cache just means you can transfer large files quicker

[MegalosSkylaki]

Like any other major component, a HDD sits in a context.

Some tests have shown (err...if you believe 'em) that an 8 mb cache WD could perform at near SCSI -like speeds--if I recall.

How that translates into discernable performance, I don't know. But the cost differential is not that great.
The U100 WD SE's have come down in price as the Maxtor U133 has offerred "performance" competition.

I would think the real question is: Is the 133 actually faster than a 100 when neither speed is reached in reality.

DOOOG

Err..maybe somebody could post the WD SE test comparisons....

[Agent_Embryo]

I'm thinking Maxtor anyhow...

[John Prophet]

The 8mb cache is definitely NOT any sort of marketing ploy....the Wd 8m series drives are pretty sweet and in the benchmarks I have seen they pretty much smoke 2mb drives....of course if all you do is browse the net and check email you aint gonna see a difference...the peeps manipulating large video files etc will see a bigger difference.

of course now there is the WD raptor 10k rpm serial ata desktop drive....the test of it shows that it smokes ALL other desktop drives but doesnt quite catch the scsi drives but it costs less.
if you look at the benchmarks you also get an idea where the 8mb drives sit in comparison to others.

In my mind the 8mb cache drives were a big step forward because we all know the hard drive has been a bottleneck for a while.

here is the raptor test http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=1799

and another comparison of 8mb drives http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/sto...e-roundup.html

JP

[Scott Tiger]

The one thing to note that no one brought up is that the 8mb WD's have a 3yr warranty and the 2mb version only has a 1yr warranty.

Not sure about the Maxtors - I don't know how they handle thier warranty issues.

[Nighthawk]

The 8MB Maxline Maxtors (hard drives sold as having 8MB of cache) still have a 3 year warranty, but the 2MB ones only have a 1 year.

http://www.maxtor.com/en/support/ser...t-a-glance.htm

[sechs]

Quote:

Originally posted by John Prophet
The 8mb cache is definitely NOT any sort of marketing ploy

I have to strongly disagree. The difference in cost between 2MB and 8MB of memory is paltry, yet the drives with larger caches cost noticeably more. This is because people automatically think that more is better and buy in.

Furthurmore, if an 8MB cache is so much more supperior, why don't all drives have them?

[sKiT]

I understood it as the drive uses the cache to write data to before actually writing to the platters...kinda like a "working" memory or RAM. So if you were to have 6MB of extra cache....you could essentially work with that much more data before the HDD even spins up the platters or rather makes that much data useable without actually writing the data. I could be wrong in this assumption as this is how I thought it might work.

[davidamarkley]

sKiT: You are correct.

sechs: Have you used an 8MB drive? There IS a difference. I have used both the WD1200JB(8MB) and the WD1200BB(2MB) and when encoding & editing video, installing programs, and anything related to moving larger files, the 8MB buffer drive outperformed the 2MB by a longshot. From your comment I assume that you haven't used an 8MB drive, or you haven't used it for bigger tasks. Otherwise, I'm sure you would've had a different opinion. As said before, if you're not doing anything related to large files, then you will not notice a difference.

Just IME of course...

David