Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Any real difference between 16M and 8M buffer on a 250G WD?

Last response: in Storage
Share
October 7, 2006 10:07:00 PM

Are there any obvious performance diffrences between these two HDD:

250 GB Western Digital KS, 16MB, 7200rpm, Serial ATA2
and
250 GB Western Digital JS, 8MB, 7200rpm, Serial ATA2
the price diffrence is only 4$(here in Romania) but i'm a little low on cash right now. (actualy it's not the money, i'm just curious!!!)
October 7, 2006 10:35:57 PM

It depends on your system and applications. Barring that ...

If four bucks is going to make or break you I doubt you have a system that performs well enough to notice any difference other than can be accounted for by having doubled your hard drive space.
October 8, 2006 2:22:44 AM

Quote:
It depends on your system and applications. Barring that ...

If four bucks is going to make or break you I doubt you have a system that performs well enough to notice any difference other than can be accounted for by having doubled your hard drive space.


lol, yep you are poor man if you cant afford 4bucks. Save up 4 bucks and just buy a stinking 16mb its worth it.
Related resources
October 8, 2006 2:59:23 AM

In any computer situations, more ram never hurts.
October 8, 2006 3:05:20 AM

What, no one can answer his question? I was wondering the same thing. From the the HD comparisons I've seen, a larger cache doesn't seem to be an advantage. I think the first manufacturer to offer the larger cache did it for marketting reasons, and now everyone else has to match it, because it LOOKS important. But I'm hoping an expert will give us a real answer.
October 8, 2006 8:38:44 AM

thanks reader850, you are the only one who gave me a an answer, sometimes i think that some people just use forumz to critisize others instead of helping or be helped.
October 8, 2006 8:50:04 AM

DELUX - Middletower ATX, MT375, 400W,

A4Tech KLS-23MU Ultra-Slim A-TYPE Multimedia Keyboard PS/2

A4Tech OP-620D-B 3D Optical Mouse PS/2 - 2xClick Button - Black

ASUS M2N-E NForce 570 Ultra, Sk AM2 , HT2000, 4*DDR2-800/667/533

AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Orleans 2,200GHz HT2000 AM2 - BOX

SYCRON DDR2/800 512MB (32Mx8-16C) Sycron - SY-DDR2-512M800

Gainward BLISS 7600GT PCX 256 DDT, GF7600GT 560 MHz, 256MB GDDR3 1.4ns 1400 MHz, 128bit, DVI, SLI

250 GB Western Digital JS, 8MB, 7200rpm, Serial ATA2

17" SVGA COLOR - Fujitsu Siemens

This is my 500$ worth pc, the same question. if there is more than 5% incresed somthing :)  about the 16M buffer hdd then i'l put the 16m one. I see no point in spending 5$ or 1$ for that matter if i can't feel the deffrence or if there is NONE.
October 8, 2006 2:46:21 PM

well, there is obviosly a difference w/ the hd's. 16mb cache would be a wiser choice. Plus shipping will be expensive to Romania so its not just 500.
October 8, 2006 4:02:13 PM

depends on the app your running. If its basic use, id say go for the 8mb cache. IF you use programs that heavily use the HDs, id go for hte 16mb. This includes Video/Audio/photo editing, CAD, Maya etc. For games its not that big of a deal unless you're running on 512 mb of ram or something. IF your page file is heavily accessed, Cache would help.
October 8, 2006 4:08:26 PM

Quote:
well, there is obviosly a difference w/ the hd's. 16mb cache would be a wiser choice. Plus shipping will be expensive to Romania so its not just 500.


How come is it obvious? i don't see anything so obvious, so what if it has double the buffer maybe 99% of the operations will be the same in both cases and only 1% will take advantege of more then 8 megs buffer.
I want a concrete ansewer, have you seen some charts? thanks
October 8, 2006 4:33:13 PM

The 16MB buffer model will perform a little better, and it's worth the extra cash. However, if you can afford a Seagate 7200.10 (make sure to get the perpindicular recording model w/16MB buffer), that would be better than the WD drives.
October 8, 2006 4:55:20 PM

Quote:
The 16MB buffer model will perform a little better, and it's worth the extra cash. However, if you can afford a Seagate 7200.10 (make sure to get the perpindicular recording model w/16MB buffer), that would be better than the WD drives.


Is the pr model the same price as the longitudinal?????????? and why is Seagate better then WD?
October 8, 2006 4:56:07 PM

The extra cache reduces the actual read/write operations of the disk thus improving durability, this only applies to apps that are heavy to de HD like video editing or so, performance wise you shouldn't notice anything.
If the diference it's just 4 bucks go for the 16 mb one
October 8, 2006 5:06:53 PM

I will totally go for the one with 16Mb Cache, Its WORTH IT! you will regret if you dont get that one. Im serious
October 8, 2006 6:13:11 PM

Quote:
The 16MB buffer model will perform a little better, and it's worth the extra cash. However, if you can afford a Seagate 7200.10 (make sure to get the perpindicular recording model w/16MB buffer), that would be better than the WD drives.


Is the pr model the same price as the longitudinal?????????? and why is Seagate better then WD?


WD has had some quality control problems lately, meaning a greater likelihood of having to RMA a bad one. Otherwise they are good drives, and still far better then some companies, like Maxtor, for instance.

The 16 mg buffer allows a larger space for storing information then a 8 mg drive without disturbing the files on the rest of the drive. If you're dealing with very large files, this can be important, but for most people, makes very little difference. At the same time, it can't hurt. I'd spend the extra $4 for it, myself, as it can't hurt and maybe some time will help.
October 8, 2006 6:52:18 PM

Quote:
Are there any obvious performance diffrences between these two HDD:

250 GB Western Digital KS, 16MB, 7200rpm, Serial ATA2
and
250 GB Western Digital JS, 8MB, 7200rpm, Serial ATA2
the price diffrence is only 4$(here in Romania) but i'm a little low on cash right now. (actualy it's not the money, i'm just curious!!!)


Unless you're running disk intensive applications with large files, you'll not see much (if any) difference. If you ran both in a disk performance benchmark then you could see the difference. But that's not real world and what the hell, $4 is $4, right? Keep in mind that there are several young ppl on here that will say something like "spend the money, it's only 4 bucks". When you're spending your parents money it never means much.
!