Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1 mb vs. 2 mb cache?

Last response: in Storage
Share
April 25, 2012 10:46:39 PM

I'm currently in the process of putting together my budget build. Originally I had planned on using my disc drive from my current machine, but recently someone at work expressed interest in buying my old rig after I am done, since the only things I am pulling out of it were two hard drives (leaving one in there) and the disc drive. Obviously he's going to need his own disc drive, so I was looking around and currently newegg has this on sale.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Currently I am using the one below. I got it about 5 years ago and haven't had any issues with it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I noticed my old drive has a 2 mb cache where this one newegg is currently selling has a 1 mb cache. Is there a big difference in that? Obviously the new one burns at higher speeds, but I don't do a whole of burning. Just curious as whether I should keep the old one and put this new one in my old system or get this one for my new system and just keep my old drive in the one it's currently in.

Thanks for any input.

More about : cache

April 25, 2012 11:02:44 PM

In all honesty, when I do a build I do the following:

DVD drive: Can it burn dvd-dl/cds? Get cheapest one.

I really doubt you will tell a difference with dvd drives unless you do a TON of burning.
m
0
l
Related resources
April 26, 2012 12:21:53 AM

I gotta admit, it's the first time to know that the ODD has a "cache" feature, I know the X write/read speed and i always pick the fastest I have 24X DVD RW and 12X Blu-Ray drive.
m
0
l
April 26, 2012 1:31:22 AM

From my understanding, cache size effects the amount of information the drive can hold during the burning process and as a result, will decrease the amount of time it'll take to burn (or the amount of passes). So I guess my question is more directed towards cache size vs. write speed because obviously having 2mb of cache would be better if both drives were the same write speed.

So, specifically, which would be better, having a higher write speed or a higher cache (with similar write speeds) and more significant which are the better out of those two models?

Thanks for the replies thus far.
m
0
l
April 26, 2012 2:00:33 AM

The larger cache size is reccomended for slower systems with limited memory.
Such as a older P3 ,P4 Athlon 64 type systems with 512mb-1gig of ram and slow 5400rpm hard drives
These type systems do a lot of hard drive thrashing(using the hard drive as virtual memory).
If the memory buffer on the disk drive becomes empty because the hard drive is thrashing and can not supply it fast enough you get a non useable disk or "coaster".
With todays faster systems and 4 gig or more of memory get the cheapest fastest one. Unless your system is one of the examples above.
m
0
l
April 26, 2012 5:56:37 AM

I'll be using a i2500k processor, 120g SSD, 1 TB 7200 rpm drive, 500g 7200 RPM drive and 8 gigs of ram (might upgrade to 16 in the near future).

So it sounds like I should just buy and install the new drive and keep the old one in the old rig.

Thanks for all the help.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
April 26, 2012 6:23:36 AM

i recently removed my ROM drive. just don't use it and i have enough PC's in the house to share one if needed.

if i need one to install windows ill just dangle it from the case lol. but seriously how often do people really use it anyway?
m
0
l
April 26, 2012 12:42:45 PM

the only time cache is a factor is when u are watching a movie or playing a game from it
m
0
l
April 26, 2012 8:51:35 PM

the great randini said:
the only time cache is a factor is when u are watching a movie or playing a game from it


Apparently you have never burned a disk. :non: 
The buffer is a safeguard in burning. Older burners had up to 8mb buffers for burning and would not start the burn process until the cachee was full.
Most good burning programs also have a graph showing how full the cache is.
m
0
l
!