8mb vs 16mb

Seth

Seth

New Member
hey, i was just wondering what the difference is between 8meg caches and 16meg ones in hdd's. What sort of performance difference would i notice and in what sort of activity would i lose most performance?
Thanks
 
zilch? then why bother paying more and making a 16meg one? there must be some differance!
 
so in essence there aint much difference...i can live with that, cos im having trouble finding a normal SATA (not II) drive that has a 16meg cache and am wondering what i'll be missing out on, but getting a 8meg cache...
 
The cache on a HDD is a marketting gimick actually. A HDD does not effectively use any more than 512k of cache, but that does not exactly sell HDDs.
 
SirKenin could you give me a link that proves that statement?
I am not saying that you are wrong, I am just interested since I've heard many people say that cache helps to improve the hard drive more than going from SATA1 to SATA2.
 
Cache CAN help drive performace. It's not always a sure sign of performace, but benchmarks will show higher cache tends to yeld higher transfer rates.
 
I know I can. I've already read it... So I know for a fact it's out there. I just have to remember the right search query.
 
huh that seagate link you provided seems to disprove seagates own testing. If you look up on Seagates website they compare their 160GB, 300GB, 400Gb 500GB SATA 2 drives. All the drives are 16MB cache while the 160GB is 8MB Cache. In Seagates document it showed the 160GB being faster in all their tests, not much faster but respectable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top