• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

500GB 32MB Cache vs 1TB 64MB Cache

tweakboy

tweakboy

Diamond Member
I soon will be looking into get HD and putting the image on a 500GB drive.

I dont need more then that but what gets me is the 1TB has double the cache 64mb. Which hard drive will be faster. Even tho I wont use that space is it worth getting cuz its 64MB and is faster then a 500GB 32MB cache... Thanks fellas
 
I'd think the biggest performance gains would come from the higher data density but don't quote me on that. Anyway there's no point in getting less than a 1TB drive today, the best price/GB point is on the 1.5TB drives but will probably move to 2TB drives when the 3TB ones hit the market which i think is soon.
Btw when getting that drive(I'm assuming you're getting a WD drive since its got 64MB cache pluss i think you mentioned it in another thread) you should be aware of its advanced format technology. Read more about that here: http://www.wdc.com/en/products/advancedformat/ If you use it unaligned you're killing your random read/write.
Here's some more info http://www.anandtech.com/show/2888/2

edit: fixed
 
Last edited:
@ Campy: You did mean no less than 1TB drive correct?? I disagree, it depends on what you are using the drive for.

From the research I've done there is really no difference between hds at all much unless your change RPMs. They just read/write better but latency is all the same from what I gather. Your throughput doesn't change either way. So I don't see the point between the 32Mb cache and 64MB cache, and like campy said make sure your aligned.
 
Yeah don't get less than 1TB. not because of performance but because of the pricing there's practically no point in getting less. You never know what your storage requirements are a year from now and when you have more space you generally find something to fill it with. At least that's how it is for me. I got by for 3 years with my pc on a 500GB storage drive. Then that died and i bought a 2TB drive, and now i've filled that in less than a year.

edit: lol now i noticed i wrote GB
 
Last edited:
The 1TB drive will be faster. It's first 500Gb are much faster than the 500Gb drive's first (and only) 500Gb. This is due to drive platter geometry. You have more space towards the outer tracks which are read and written faster. Note that the 500Gb and 1Tb drives have the same dimension platters. The 500Gb probably has a single platter and the 1Tb has a couple of those. So the density remains the same. The 64mb of cache on the larger drive won't speed up the drive considerably though...
 
1TB could be 4x 250GB or 3x 333GB as well. The fastest disks are single-platter HDDs with one 666GB-platter.

So 1TB doesn't tell you if its an older or newer drive. a new 500GB drive may be lots faster if it is a single platter 500GB drive and the 1TB drive is a triple platter.

So data density pretty much determines the speed of your HDD, together with spindle speed. It's much more important than any other spec; the 5400rpm versus 7200rpm is trivial when the platter capacity differs alot. A new 5400rpm beats the 10000rpm velociraptor in sequential performance; so 5400rpm does not mean slow.

The cache is totally irrelevant; though 4K sector drives could indeed use more cache to hide their slow sector emulation.
 
Last edited:
Wow, thank you all thanks campy and to all for your responses. Very technical.

Soo far from all I read I came to conclusion a WDC Black 500GB will be single platter while a 1TB will be 3 platters. A single platter is faster regardless of 32mb or 64mb cache.

Ok my final question. Which should I get.

WDC Black 500GB 32MB or WDC Black 1TB 64MB .

Dont consider size as 500 is enough for me, consider raw speed. Thanks a lot

gg and gb
 
I would look at the new Samsung F4 series with 666GB platters; newest generation. They should be faster than the blacks.

The Samsung F4 = 7200rpm (best for mixed small/large files like on OS disk)
The Samsung F4EG or EcoGreen = 5400rpm (best for large files; mass-storage; backup)

The Samsung F4 640GB 7200rpm may be what you're looking for. Single-platter means less components; less friction and thus lower power consumption. Should be one of the fastest 7200rpm disks today. 150MB/s+ sequential speeds. Note the F4EG at 5400rpm also reaches up to 140MB/s sequential reads.
 
Wow sub mesa amazing news you gave me. I did not know there was this fast drives like this. soo I get a Samsung F4 640GB. Post a link if you can on a place with cheapest price I will also do it and see where I can find one.
 
Since you mentioned Western Digital than the 1Tb WD Black is a double platter not a triple platter. And so far there is no disk (including the Samsung) that is faster than the 1Tb Black. It was also written here @ anandtech some time back.
Additionally in my previous experiences i have never had a dead WD and Hitachi only Maxtors, Samsungs and Seagates. So i will not recommend Samsung by any means. The choice is yours mate.
 
FishAk said:
Both the 320 and 640 are single platter, so the F4 640Gb would be much faster due to density.
Click to expand...

As Tweak says....looks like the 2TB 5400 and the 320GB 7200 are the only new F4's to actually hit stores.

A single platter 667 sounds sweet! Any links to new F4's at stores??
 
tweakboy said:
I found this its Samsung F4 320GB

http://www.chiefvalue.com/product-_-...00158829010060

Im having difficulty finding a F4 640GB the one I found 320GB one is 42 dollars only.
Click to expand...
The F4 series is very new and not all models are currently available it appears.

The 320GB should be as fast as the 640GB one; it also features one 666GB-platter, but only uses one side of the platter using a single head. This way it only gets capacity of 320GB.

The normal 640GB F4 also has a single platter of 666GB, but uses dual heads on both sides of the platter to use the full capacity.

The 320GB with only one head would have the advantage of even less noise and friction, but most importantly: less mechanical parts. This should enhance reliability and endurance as well.
 
AstroGuardian said:
Since you mentioned Western Digital than the 1Tb WD Black is a double platter not a triple platter. And so far there is no disk (including the Samsung) that is faster than the 1Tb Black. It was also written here @ anandtech some time back.
Click to expand...
Huh? The only HDD review on AT I can remember reading in the last time was about the VRs.

And according to that the 1tb blacks aren't that special. The 640gb drives were great though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top