# 32MB Vs. 64MB Cache



## Tempest_Inc

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.


----------



## sn0man

No.

If price/features are the same, choose the higher cache. Otherwise it won't make a difference.


----------



## Tempest_Inc

Would there be much of a difference when it comes time for me to reinstall all my app on my OS drives?


----------



## eseb1

nope


----------



## Tempest_Inc

so what is the point of the added cache?


----------



## br3nd064

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tempest_Inc* 
so what is the point of the added cache?

Honestly, 64mb cache is mostly hype, and you won't actually notice a difference.


----------



## Conley

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tempest_Inc* 
so what is the point of the added cache?

To convince people that the hard drive is superior. As long as a modern HD has at least 8MB of cache, it shouldn't make any difference.


----------



## vi3t_boy

its like you comparing a WD black with 32mb cache and WD green with 64mb cache, the black version is still faster then the green.


----------



## 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


----------



## tK FuRY

if cache made such a difference, Spinpoint F3s wouldn't be any good >.>


----------



## 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).


----------



## DuckieHo

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 [email protected] vs the [email protected] performance. One would think the larger cache would have more of an impact on the [email protected] 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).

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:

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


----------



## 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.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


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.

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.


----------



## awdrifter

I don't think it's invalid though, there are only two variables in that comparision, so the cache should be partly responsible for the speed increase.

Do you have a link to the 7200.10 8mb vs 16mb review?


----------

