thinking of buying a new HD

[univ`]

I currently have a raptor 74gb 10k rpm (74gb is the fastest raptor western digital has made out of the other family members (34gb/150gb etc) Overall its the 2nd fastest HD currently for desktop/gaming.

This is a gaming pc. The point of this thread is, I want to buy a new hd to use as storage (music/movies/text etc.)

I been wondering, is it worth going with a HD that is 32mb cache rather than a 16mb cache when this HD will only be used to put files inside and nothing else. And 16mb is less inexpensive than 32mb, which i like :)

what you guys think

[ImSpartacus]

I'm pretty sure the extra cache only really helps with the movement of big files. You would probably like to look into WD's 640GB Caviar (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152102). Aside from being 15c/GB it is pretty fast for a larger drive. It also only has two platters so it doesn't use too much power.

I honestly wouldn't go for a 1TB drive. You could RAID0 two 640GB drives for about the same amount of money. It would be more power and heat, but if you can deal with a raptor, you can deal with two 7200rpm drives.

Samsung's F1 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152102) actually has 32MB and is the cheapest 1TB drive on Newegg. It also has the least platter count compared to the other drives (3x334 vs. 4x250). If you really want a 1TB drive (it's more expensive per GB than the 640GB drive) then the F1 is pretty nice.

[univ`]

I'm pretty sure the extra cache only really helps with the movement of big files. You would probably like to look into WD's 640GB Caviar. Aside from being 15c/GB it is pretty fast for a larger drive. It also only has two platters so it doesn't use too much power.

I honestly wouldn't go for a 1TB drive. You could RAID0 two 640GB drives for about the same amount of money. It would be more power and heat, but if you can deal with a raptor, you can deal with two 7200rpm drives.

Well, i'm not looking to spend to much >

so far i'm looking at

$70 400gb 16mb cache 7200rpm, has good reviews etc and i find that to be great for my music/movies

[Niku-Sama]

i have a 320gig seagate 7200.11 and its pretty freakin fast.
the drive index in sandra gives it a 82.74 MB/s

[ou_phidelt]

I'm pretty sure the extra cache only really helps with the movement of big files. You would probably like to look into WD's 640GB Caviar (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152102). Aside from being 15c/GB it is pretty fast for a larger drive. It also only has two platters so it doesn't use too much power.

I honestly wouldn't go for a 1TB drive. You could RAID0 two 640GB drives for about the same amount of money. It would be more power and heat, but if you can deal with a raptor, you can deal with two 7200rpm drives.

Samsung's F1 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152102) actually has 32MB and is the cheapest 1TB drive on Newegg. It also has the least platter count compared to the other drives (3x334 vs. 4x250). If you really want a 1TB drive (it's more expensive per GB than the 640GB drive) then the F1 is pretty nice.

Western Digital has moved to 334GB platters as well. I don't know if they are shipping yet but if not they will be shortly.

Anyways if it just going to be storage the speed isn't going to be that big of deal unless you are moving the files around a lot. As long as it is reliable that 400GB drive should be fine.

[onegin]

A lil bit out of your price range but for about $300 you can have the fastest single HD The One And Only... THE VELOCIRAPTOR <worshiping music plays in the background> WD promised Mid-May... unofficially Newegg predicted next 2 weeks.

From the research I have done the 640Gb wd caviars rated close to the velociraptors and you can have them for cheap

You can also get their single platter (320Gb) version that is also fast for even cheaper

[tuskenraider]

i have a 320gig seagate 7200.11 and its pretty freakin fast.
the drive index in sandra gives it a 82.74 MB/s What other current drives have you had to compare Sandra scores to make such a claim? And how does Sandra scores convert in "Freakin fast" for desktop use?

I been wondering, is it worth going with a HD that is 32mb cache rather than a 16mb cache when this HD will only be used to put files inside and nothing else. And 16mb is less inexpensive than 32mb, which i like :)

what you guys thinkFor storage, cache isn't a concern. 32MB cache hasn't been proven in any review I've seen to elevate a drive's performance compared to it's competitiors with less.

[forceman]

For storage, cache isn't a concern. 32MB cache hasn't been proven in any review I've seen to elevate a drive's performance compared to it's competitiors with less.

I'd agree with that. WD is pretty adamant that the extra cache makes no difference in real world usage (of course, they don't make 32mb drives so they have an incentive to say that).