[EIC]WD to unveil a 2Tb 64mb cache HDD - Page 8 - Overclock.net

dlee7283 · 07-07-09

Hard Drive cache is overated and a gimmick. 16mb is enough for most people.

for drive performance go SSD or Raptor.

Enigma8750 · 07-07-09

I guess I see your point but it claims to have dual processors and 64 mb cache. That has got to mean something in the realm of speed.
Surely they don't add all that for marketing alone. It just doesn't make any since to do that. I have noticed an increase in speed with my new build. Now that may mean that I have a fresh install of windows which I know is nice and fast but I also see marked improvement in read write speed. That may be due to perpendicular recording technology or the larger cache size but I love my 32mb Cache 500 gb WD Black.

DuckieHo · 07-07-09

I finally found the article: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,1557-5.html

To re-iterate:
1) SATA does not improve HD performance
2) Very large cache does not improve HD performance

Quote:

We looked at several Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 drives to get down to the performance nitty-gritty. In doing so, we found that there is hardly any difference between two drives that only differ in their cache sizes: 16 MB cache has no significant advantage over 8 MB across our benchmark suite, and this applies both to Serial ATA and to UltraATA drives. We would have expected that at least the SATA drives would show some degree of benefit, but in the case of the 7200.10 family, 16 MB cache is a waste of money if you have a cheaper 8 MB alternative. At the same time, 16 MB cache doesn't hurt either if the price is about the same...

Licht · 07-07-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckieHo

I finally found the article: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,1557-5.html

To re-iterate:
1) SATA does not improve HD performance
2) Very large cache does not improve HD performance

Precisely why i didn't waste money getting HDDs with more then 16MB of cache for my RAID0 array.

codibick · 07-07-09

can anyone give me one of those? i mean, my bday is coming... lol

Kuntz · 07-07-09

Memory/Cache just get cheaper and cheaper over time, there really is no reason not to add 32mb/64mb cache to a drive, even if benchmarks show no real improvement. Though I think if they supported programmable cache/cache hints, so OS's like Windows could hint to the HDD what to keep in cache, that might serve everyone better than it just taking wild guesses.

sLowEnd · 07-07-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuntz

Memory/Cache just get cheaper and cheaper over time, there really is no reason not to add 32mb/64mb cache to a drive, even if benchmarks show no real improvement. Though I think if they supported programmable cache/cache hints, so OS's like Windows could hint to the HDD what to keep in cache, that might serve everyone better than it just taking wild guesses.

Even with that, less is still cheaper, so yes there is a reason not to add that much cache.

**gonX** · 07-07-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by sLowEnd

Even with that, less is still cheaper, so yes there is a reason not to add that much cache.

Not if the memory modules aren't being produced

sLowEnd · 07-07-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonX

Not if the memory modules aren't being produced

The low end is always there lol

Like for example, Geforce MX400's are still being made

Enigma8750 · 07-07-09

Thanks DuckyHo for setting me straight. I just got Schooled

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Industry News > Hardware News
[EIC]WD to unveil a 2Tb 64mb cache HDD

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)