Caching makes writes and reads faster once passed to Ram. If you can afford it you should always get a bigger Cache.
However the cache is not noticeable past the point where the data is being passed to the Ram.
So the question for you is what applications will you be primarily running?
If you're gaming then there's very little improvement from a cache size because the data is only loaded once and not constantly written to and from the hard drive.
Where as programs that constantly save and read data from the hard drive would benefit greatly from a larger cache.
I'm not saying games don't constantly load data to and from the hard drive but they do it at large amounts at big intervals when the data is needed or changed.
So your decision should be thought about the primary use of your computer or application of the hard drive.
Ive read that cache over 8mb is sufficient and doesnt matter much after that. Anyone have insight into this?
I think you misunderstood there. It's not that more than 8MB of HDD drive cache doesn't matter, it's that more than 8GB of system RAM (with a 64bit O/S) is not needed for the vast majority of users.
Like Trent Quan-Sing said, get the HDD with the bigger cache.
Actually you misunderstood what I said.
I meant what I wrote. Ive read people on this forum and others remark that over 8mb or 16mb, you dont notice cache size making a difference in performance.
I was not confusing this with ram. I know for most people 4gigs of Ram is sufficient, while many gamers use 8gigs. I myself have 16gigs of ram, but my system is not only for gaming.
I was simply referring to cache size in my OP for hard drives. I wasnt sure if Id really notice much of a difference between 16mb or 32mb. And lastly, is there anything over 64mb available at the moment? I havent seen anything over 64mb for mechanical drives.