• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

how important is 16mb cache?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

koontz946

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2003
Location
West Orange, NJ
what kind of performance increase would i see with a jump to a 16mb cache (from an 8mb) keeping rpm at 7200?

system will be used for gaming (hl2, farcry, bf2) and dvd work (burning ripping etc)

also if anyone has a link to a decently priced hdd around 100GB with 16mb and SATA II please post here
 
Actually, Ive seen western digital and seagate 8mb's top the 16mb maxtor's in a lot of benchmarks...

I dont think 16MB really does much...
 
My maxtor sata 16 tops raptors in some benchmarks...

It is noticeably more zippy than my old wd pata 8mb casche drive.

Im pretty sure 200gig is the smalles 16meg drive out there. My maxtor was $140 for teh 250gig from zzf.
 
nealric said:
My maxtor sata 16 tops raptors in some benchmarks...

It is noticeably more zippy than my old wd pata 8mb casche drive.

Im pretty sure 200gig is the smalles 16meg drive out there. My maxtor was $140 for teh 250gig from zzf.
ncq :cool:
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20050523/hitachi-deskstar-06.html

As you can see data density is probably more important than anything else for a 7200 rpm drive. NCQ is nice, and I think that is a great feature. Of course, it is available on many drives...

The reason newer drives typically are better than the older drives is due to how much data they can pack into every square inch of the platters. The drive doesn't have to spin faster to read more. This is why we've had 7200 rpm drives steadily increase their transfer rates from 30 MB/s (4 years ago) to 50 MB/s avg today.

The 16MB cache, as I've said does little or nothing to add to performance..
 
The new Hitachi Deskstars are much faster than typical 7200RPM drives. Other features than the cache cause it as written above by nicknomo. If you are looking for performance increase the new SATA II drives are the way to go, rather than 16 MB cache. However I think the MaxlineIII might be both, and that would only increase performance.
 
what about the WD SATAII with the 16mb cache? link Would that be good? also, are all SATAII NCQ? I wasent sure if they were using chips or not. I read that for the hitachi you need a prog to unlock the 3gbps but if it needs software to unlock, wouldnt it be using a converter chip?
 
AFAIK all SATA II hard drives have NCQ, but you also have to be sure that your chipset supports NCQ or you will not realize any of the performance increases.
 
Now if we could just get SATAIII and 32mb buffers, the drives wouldn't even have to spin...

Please people, don't be sheep. SATAII itself does nothing for performance, and the point of diminishing returns for cache size is clearly reached before you get to 8MB. Knowing whether a drive has a "I" or "II" or "8" or "16" on it is useless psuedo-knowledge. If you care about performance learn how fast a drive is for your application rather than obsessing with trademarks, buzzwords, and spec-sheet BS.

I understand it's a lot harder, and you must understand that no number or group of numbers can come close to adequately describing a drive's performance. The performance of a hard drive is the composite of its performance in a nearly infinite number of different situations, and it is not feasible to test and numerically quantify an infinite number of possibilities. Stop looking for a shortcut to learning, and learn.

In the end a new drive will almost always bring a peformance boost, but that is because it is new, not because of the growth in the spec-sheet figures. They make new drives because they figure out how to make them cheaper, but fortunately the same things that make them cheaper also make them faster. If it's a year newer drive design, it will be faster, whether it spins faster, has a bigger buffer, has a II instead of a I, or not.

If you really want to know, buy the drive and test it in your machine and for your usage. Nothing else will really tell you the story. The next best thing is to examine the results others achieve, but you better know a lot about what you are looking at or you will have no way to correlate that to the results you yourself will obtain. And remember, in the end, no matter what the specs and no matter how cheap they (or you) are, no 7200rpm drive even performs on par with, much less outperforms, the Raptor 74.

The only thing that has changed is that the NCQ most SATAII drives employ is of minor benefit. Other than that STR has grown a bit and seek performance gotten a tad better. Just the same as the sort of advances seen per unit time for the last 10 years or so... If your drive is generations old, you will see nice benefits. But it is primarily because those generations have passed, not so much what form the hype surrounding each took.

And if you really care about performance, there are only two games in town. The Raptor74's massive seek advantage is still unassailable, and Hitachi makes, all-else-equal, the fastest hard drives. Only because Hitachi makes no 10,000rpm SATA drive is the Raptor king. If you want the fastest 7200rpm, get the Hitachi. Just don't fancy it truly equal to a competent 10,000rpm unit like the R74.
 
O yea??? well.... yea.

(damn that ******* caught us... meet again same time and place next week where we will discuss our stats and argue for hours about whats good and bad.... see you next week!)
 
larva said:
Now if we could just get SATAIII and 32mb buffers, the drives wouldn't even have to spin...

Please people, don't be sheep. SATAII itself does nothing for performance, and the point of diminishing returns for cache size is clearly reached before you get to 8MB. Knowing whether a drive has a "I" or "II" or "8" or "16" on it is useless psuedo-knowledge. If you care about performance learn how fast a drive is for your application rather than obsessing with trademarks, buzzwords, and spec-sheet BS.

I understand it's a lot harder, and you must understand that no number or group of numbers can come close to adequately describing a drive's performance. The performance of a hard drive is the composite of its performance in a nearly infinite number of different situations, and it is not feasible to test and numerically quantify an infinite number of possibilities. Stop looking for a shortcut to learning, and learn.

In the end a new drive will almost always bring a peformance boost, but that is because it is new, not because of the growth in the spec-sheet figures. They make new drives because they figure out how to make them cheaper, but fortunately the same things that make them cheaper also make them faster. If it's a year newer drive design, it will be faster, whether it spins faster, has a bigger buffer, has a II instead of a I, or not.

If you really want to know, buy the drive and test it in your machine and for your usage. Nothing else will really tell you the story. The next best thing is to examine the results others achieve, but you better know a lot about what you are looking at or you will have no way to correlate that to the results you yourself will obtain. And remember, in the end, no matter what the specs and no matter how cheap they (or you) are, no 7200rpm drive even performs on par with, much less outperforms, the Raptor 74.

The only thing that has changed is that the NCQ most SATAII drives employ is of minor benefit. Other than that STR has grown a bit and seek performance gotten a tad better. Just the same as the sort of advances seen per unit time for the last 10 years or so... If your drive is generations old, you will see nice benefits. But it is primarily because those generations have passed, not so much what form the hype surrounding each took.

And if you really care about performance, there are only two games in town. The Raptor74's massive seek advantage is still unassailable, and Hitachi makes, all-else-equal, the fastest hard drives. Only because Hitachi makes no 10,000rpm SATA drive is the Raptor king. If you want the fastest 7200rpm, get the Hitachi. Just don't fancy it truly equal to a competent 10,000rpm unit like the R74.

so basically what youre saying, is when SATA V comes out, and it utilizes the 31.5mb cache... we'll all be good to go?
 
Wwing49 said:
O yea??? well.... yea.

(damn that ******* caught us... meet again same time and place next week where we will discuss our stats and argue for hours about whats good and bad.... see you next week!)
I hope it was clear that my intent was not to argue, but rather to put these factors in their proper perspective. Seek performance is still the dominant factor in hard drives, so if you want the best SATAII drive, get the Hitachi. Their seek performance is unmatched amongst 7200rpm drives, and has been for three generations now. NCQ turns that seek performance into a touch more application performance, but that in itself is a minor factor not worth spending money on. The drive is worth spending money on, not the fact that it is SATAII or has NCQ (or a 16mb buffer).
 
yeah, kinda what Larva said, SATAII is just a new interface, the SATAI interface wasn't even stopping/hindering speeds in the first place, so basicly SATAII didn't do much w/ out a faster spinning drive itself.
 
I know you werent arguing with us, but you put an end to all the endless arguments us pleebs have over stats we see everywhere... death... you ruined our fun!
 
larva said:
And if you really care about performance, there are only two games in town. The Raptor74's massive seek advantage is still unassailable, and Hitachi makes, all-else-equal, the fastest hard drives. Only because Hitachi makes no 10,000rpm SATA drive is the Raptor king. If you want the fastest 7200rpm, get the Hitachi. Just don't fancy it truly equal to a competent 10,000rpm unit like the R74.

I think you contradicted most of your post, Larva.

BTW, I think Hitachi drives stink and I know many enthusiasts would concur.
 
How so?

And BTW-if you don't recognize Hitachi's performance leadership, you may not contradict yourself, but you surely discredit yourself.
 
hitachi is not known for their failures, only IBM was, and yes Hitachi bought out IBM's harddrive division, but they are using totaly new fab techniques, and parts, so no, they are not the famed deathstars, just your usual fast hitachi's :D
 
I know they were bought out by Hitachi, but I was under the impression its the same plant making the drives, just different ownership.. I don't think I'd consider it a different organization altogether...

Either way, if you look at the benchmarks, all are pretty close to one another.. maybe with all the top drives varying in the 3-4 MB/s range. I've seen IBM/Hitachi drives up there, but I've seen Seagate, Samsung and WD(raptors) right up there or past the hitachi's performance level.

Personally, I don't even think the Raptors speed advantage is something to make a fuss about. I'd be more concerned with reliability over anything else. At a small performance hit, I bought the Western Digital RE simply because they are rated for a longer life. Of course, I don't do anything too hard drive intensive.... so maybe I'm biased.
 
Back