I'm looking for a 2TB drive I'm sitting with 30GB free on my 1TB. This drive is for storage (CD images, music, programs, documents, basically anything i cant afford to loose. I'm looking at the 2TB drives and i see 16, 32, & 64MB caching options. Will i notice a difference with the higher caching vs. lower. Most of the time it gets light use listening to music while playing games, or running Vmachines.
32MB Vs. 64MB Cache
Tempest_Inc
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Joined
·
842 Posts
I'm looking for a 2TB drive I'm sitting with 30GB free on my 1TB. This drive is for storage (CD images, music, programs, documents, basically anything i cant afford to loose. I'm looking at the 2TB drives and i see 16, 32, & 64MB caching options. Will i notice a difference with the higher caching vs. lower. Most of the time it gets light use listening to music while playing games, or running Vmachines.
Joined
·
842 Posts
Would there be much of a difference when it comes time for me to reinstall all my app on my OS drives?
Joined
·
842 Posts
so what is the point of the added cache?
Supposedly on the bigger drives the larger cache does help. Here's a review of the WD RE4-GP 2TB compared to the Caviar GP 2TB. Both drives are 5400rpm and both are 4 platters, but the RE4-GP is faster, partly due to the larger cache.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=3
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=3
You can't really compare the amount of cache on two different designs. But the WD RE4-GP and Caviar GP are based on the same disign, same amount of platters, and the same rpm. The only two differences are the RE4-GP has dual processors and 64mb of cache (vs the Caviar GP's single processor and 32mb).
Quote:
The RE4-GP 2TB is slower GP 2TB according to those benchmarks.
You cannot make that assumption based on aural density, platter count, and rotational speed alone. The firmware and controller have more of an impact.
From the benchmarks, I doubt cache has anything to do with performance. I say this because the percentage advantage does not change very much when looking at the 1000@1MB vs the 10@1000MB performance. One would think the larger cache would have more of an impact on the 1000@1MB benchmark.
Quote:
You still can't compare cache on those drives because you can't isolate the impact of the processor. You can compare cache performance only if everything is the same except for the cache.
An example would be the 7200.10 which had identical models with 8MB and 16MB. Here's a review that did that: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,1557-5.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by awdrifter  Supposedly on the bigger drives the larger cache does help. Here's a review of the WD RE4-GP 2TB compared to the Caviar GP 2TB. Both drives are 5400rpm and both are 4 platters, but the RE4-GP is faster, partly due to the larger cache. http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=3 |
The RE4-GP 2TB is slower GP 2TB according to those benchmarks.
You cannot make that assumption based on aural density, platter count, and rotational speed alone. The firmware and controller have more of an impact.
From the benchmarks, I doubt cache has anything to do with performance. I say this because the percentage advantage does not change very much when looking at the 1000@1MB vs the 10@1000MB performance. One would think the larger cache would have more of an impact on the 1000@1MB benchmark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by awdrifter You can't really compare the amount of cache on two different designs. But the WD RE4-GP and Caviar GP are based on the same disign, same amount of platters, and the same rpm. The only two differences are the RE4-GP has dual processors and 64mb of cache (vs the Caviar GP's single processor and 32mb). |
An example would be the 7200.10 which had identical models with 8MB and 16MB. Here's a review that did that: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,1557-5.html
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 |
I know the RE4-GP vs Caviar GP is not perfect, but that's as similar of a drive as I can find. If I compare the Blue vs GP, then the rpm is different. If I compare the Black vs Blue, the Black would still have dual processors, so it's the same issue.
Quote:
Since you realize the comparisons are invalid, then how did you come up with the assumption on cache performance? The only way to do so would be to look at cache vs non-cache intensive performance (small files vs large files) and do analysis on the performance pattern. A quick look at the numbers do not support your claim.
If you want a valid cache performance review, you can look at the 7200.10 on 8MB vs 16MB.
Originally Posted by awdrifter I know the RE4-GP vs Caviar GP is not perfect, but that's as similar of a drive as I can find. If I compare the Blue vs GP, then the rpm is different. If I compare the Black vs Blue, the Black would still have dual processors, so it's the same issue. |
If you want a valid cache performance review, you can look at the 7200.10 on 8MB vs 16MB.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
