Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

16MB vs 8MB Cache

Last response: in Storage
Share
June 30, 2006 12:03:01 PM

I did a search on Toms, I googled it, and did not find my answer. So any one have a review or opinion on if it is better to buy a 8MB or 16 MB cache?

What is the performance gain or loss? What about RAIDing two drives?

More about : 16mb 8mb cache

June 30, 2006 12:50:07 PM

16 MB is better because theres room for more data compared to 8 MB.
June 30, 2006 1:32:41 PM

of course...16m cache is better...but you`ll only see this gain in transfers....and then it all cames back to the sistem performance...
Related resources
June 30, 2006 1:35:10 PM

Quote:
I did a search on Toms, I googled it, and did not find my answer. So any one have a review or opinion on if it is better to buy a 8MB or 16 MB cache?

What is the performance gain or loss? What about RAIDing two drives?

it all depends on what is better for you. If you mind performance, or price, size, etc.
a bigger cache is always better, but more expensive. The same with raid. It can give you speed or security, or both, but all at an expense.
June 30, 2006 1:35:35 PM

How do you delete a double post? Lag was bad and I pressed submit to many times..
June 30, 2006 1:36:11 PM

How do you quantify better? I could say a porch is better than a ferrari. But it means nothing unless it is justified.

My dad is better then yours :p 

Ok here are the drives,
Samsung Spinpoint P Series 160GB SATA2 7200RPM 8MB 8.9MS FDB RoHS Hard Drive 3 Year MFR Warranty
and
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB SATA2 3GB/S 7200RPM 16MB Cache NCQ Hard Drive

Size is no concern, I can not support NQC right now or SATAII. But the drives should work, as I understand they are backwards compat.
June 30, 2006 1:47:57 PM

Hi,
Large cache drives offer faster read ahead times. The cache is used as a read ahead buffer. I could not justify Raptors for myself but I am very pleased with the drives that I did choose and they are Western Digital WD2500KS 16MB cache drives. The larger cache will not speed up large files. It will give your computer a faster feel when opening files and applications. Your computer will appear to 'snap' (it will not crackle or pop though).
June 30, 2006 1:55:07 PM

samsung spinpoint is quiet and fast enough......but only 160 gig
seagate is very load..that model.....

i would either go a spin point or same wd2500js for 8M or it`s 16M model wd2500ks.........which are very fast and quiet....

exactly this moment i have a sistem (same a64 3500+, nf4 mobo, etc) with a st3200822as..which i think it has 200 gig and 8M cache.....this type of drive is very load .. which bothers me alot... 8O

the best drives i have in store now are the WD series...2500js or his more expensive brother 2500ks....
June 30, 2006 1:57:25 PM

Quote:
samsung spinpoint is quiet and fast enough......but only 160 gig
seagate is very load..that model.....

i would either go a spin point or same wd2500js for 8M or it`s 16M model wd2500ks.........which are very fast and quiet....

exactly this moment i have a sistem (same a64 3500+, nf4 mobo, etc) with a st3200822as..which i think it has 200 gig and 8M cache.....this type of drive is very load .. which bothers me alot... 8O

the best drives i have in store now are the WD series...2500js or his more expensive brother 2500ks....

you mean loud?
June 30, 2006 2:01:51 PM

ya sure..loud ..sorry....this heat ..is killing my brains :? ......i think there are 3428349082094 degrees in my office now......
June 30, 2006 2:14:32 PM

Quote:
How do you quantify better? I could say a porch is better than a ferrari. But it means nothing unless it is justified.


Well you can sit outside and look at people driving by in their Ferrari's or Porsche's if you own a porch. With a Ferrari you can drive by and look at people sitting on their porch. You can't really compare them at all. :lol: 
June 30, 2006 2:20:44 PM

The 16MB cache is heaven for me!! That and 2GB Ram loads BF2 levels almost as fast as Raid raptors with 8mb cache (I say this because that is what always happens with a guy in my clan when we play together)
June 30, 2006 2:21:01 PM

16MB is definently better
there isnt that much difference though
it is barely noticible
June 30, 2006 3:44:38 PM

I just went with the Seagate 320Gb SATA II NCQ 7200.10 with 16Mb cache. It has the new perpendicular recording technology and is supposed to be a great performing drive. They have a 250Gb version too but it only has an 8Mb cache. Honestly I was willing to pay the extra for the 16mb cache when really the drive size wasn't important. The next thing will be to get a second drive to backup to.... I still get jumpy about losing family files should the drive crash. Luckily it has a 5yr warranty.
June 30, 2006 4:28:52 PM

Thanks all. I think the 2500ks will work for me. The price is right and the features look good.

If you say it is good on noise and such then I am more inclined to buy it.

It lacks NCQ but I can not even use it at this point. In three years, I am not to likely to remember where they came from so if the drive does die, I will buy.
June 30, 2006 6:07:36 PM

Great choice you will be more then happy!
July 3, 2006 9:29:27 AM

great choice.......it has low noice level..(i`m stunned to see the information they put on the official web site......)
in practice 2500ks is very quiet..you can barrely hear it when you transfer few movies from a partition to another for example....

st3200824as...(i hope i got it right) a 250gigabyte 8M drive from seagate ....is very loud ...expecially when transfering data...
July 3, 2006 9:30:59 AM

as for ncq...very few app can deal with that.....more cache can very much overcame that
!