2MB vs 8MB

[silky62678]

I've read quite a lot about the difference between 2mb and 8mb cache drives being just a lot of hype.

When I've looked for speed benchmarks, it seems that I'm always finding the 2mb cache Barracuda V, but nothing on the 8mb version or any head to head comparison.

Does anybody know from either personal experience, or otherwise, which would be the better way to go? I recall seeing something where some 8mb drives had actually been clocked slower than their 2mb counterparts. And how are Serial ATA vs EIDE drives?

 

[Goatman]

Right now the problem with SATA is their controllers are rather... immature at the moment.

But as far as the cache goes, the 8 mb cache does indeed create a faster drive.

Take a look at the new WD Raptor, it's the fastest IDE drive around (it's a SATA drive).

http://www4.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/index.html

 

[albybum]

There is a very noticable difference between a 2mb and 8mb cache. I recently switched from a Western Digital 7200 rpm hard drive with a 2mb cache to a 8mb version at the same speed. Program loading times were not amazing, but noticably faster.

But this is only really noticable if you are using the drive for your operating system, programs, or audio or video editing.

Honestly, even if you are just going to use the drive for storage, I would get the 8mb version because the price difference is not that big, especially if you look in the right place.

If the benchmark is setup correctly and the hardware in the drives is similar, the 8mb version should always outperform the lesser version.

The extra space allows more storage for the locations of recently and most used files. This allows faster performace because the drive does not have to rebuild an index for the file.

And as far as Serial ata is concerned, I would wait a while for hardware vendors to work out the bugs.