32mb vs. 64mb HHD cache

[lykaon78]

Is this just a ploy to separate me from my money? Will I notice a difference.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Higher-density platter HDs, require larger caches to hold an entire track into RAM when reading/writing. Performance-wise, I'm not certain that the cache makes much difference with a mechanical HD. However, higher-density platter HDs are generally faster, because of their platter density, regardless of cache.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Is this just a ploy to separate me from my money? Will I notice a difference.

For the most part, yes.

 

[Blain]

Usually there's more differences than just cache size.
Dig a little deeper.

 

[Anarchist420]

cache buffer is one of many factors determining as to how fast a given HDD will be. In addition to that, the quality (i.e., latency, although I'm sure they're all within a narrow range of latency) of the cache buffer is a factor.

32 MB cache buffer is usually good for 500GB drive.

As for optical drives, you always want a larger cache buffer even though that's not the only factor there either.

 

[BFG10K]

Bigger caches can help with write performance for very small files.

But as Blain says, there are usually other fundamental differences in the drives if the cache sizes are different.

 

[zCypher]

I have two identical 1TB WD Blacks one with 32MB the other with 64MB. The 64MB drive feels noticeably faster and scores higher in ATTO benchmarks.

 

[moriz]

I have two identical 1TB WD Blacks one with 32MB the other with 64MB. The 64MB drive feels noticeably faster and scores higher in ATTO benchmarks.

... Then they are not identical now, aren't they?

I'm pretty sure the older blacks use more platters, which can also affect performance.

 

[zCypher]

... Then they are not identical now, aren't they?

I'm pretty sure the older blacks use more platters, which can also affect performance.

WD1002FAEX and WD1001FALS. It would seem the 32MB one is SATA2, and the 64MB SATA3, though I'm not sure that would really make any difference for these drives.

They're the same as far as both being WD Black and both 1TB drives. So you are correct sir, they are not identical. My bad.

 

[BFG10K]

WD1002FAEX and WD1001FALS. It would seem the 32MB one is SATA2, and the 64MB SATA3, though I'm not sure that would really make any difference for these drives.

SATA3 would only affect the burst rate, which is usually meaningless. The difference was already mentioned - platter configuration:

FALS = 3 x 333 GB.
FAEX = 2 x 500 GB.

FAEX’s platters have a higher areal density so they can transfer data faster.

I actually tested both drives here: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2220880

 

[VirtualLarry]

SATA3 would only affect the burst rate, which is usually meaningless. The difference was already mentioned - platter configuration:

FALS = 3 x 333 GB.
FAEX = 2 x 500 GB.

FAEX’s platters have a higher areal density so they can transfer data faster.

Which is basically what I said - bigger cache oftentimes accompanies a higher platter density drive.