In the 7200-rpm realm, how significant and noticeable, in real-world usage (as opposed to benchmarks alone) is the difference between an SATA HD with a 8MB cache vs. one with a 16MB cache?
For those of you who've used both in the same computer, was the difference dramatic or merely slightly noticeable?
I realize there are other factors at play when comparing drives -- e.g., platter areal density & firmware -- so I realize a perfect comparison will be impossible. I'm just asking for your experiences/impressions in general.
My limited impression is that the larger cache only really makes a difference when writing large blocks of continuous data with large file sizes -- for example, ripping a DVD or CD to a HD in preparation for copying -- because there won't be as many pauses for the buffer to 'catch up.' Is this correct, and would that also apply when saving a typical YouTube video (in MPEG-4) to a hard drive?
As far as MS Office, Web surfing, Photoshop & Illustrator, would having a 16MB cache make much difference? (I don't game at all, incidentally.)
For those of you who've used both in the same computer, was the difference dramatic or merely slightly noticeable?
I realize there are other factors at play when comparing drives -- e.g., platter areal density & firmware -- so I realize a perfect comparison will be impossible. I'm just asking for your experiences/impressions in general.
My limited impression is that the larger cache only really makes a difference when writing large blocks of continuous data with large file sizes -- for example, ripping a DVD or CD to a HD in preparation for copying -- because there won't be as many pauses for the buffer to 'catch up.' Is this correct, and would that also apply when saving a typical YouTube video (in MPEG-4) to a hard drive?
As far as MS Office, Web surfing, Photoshop & Illustrator, would having a 16MB cache make much difference? (I don't game at all, incidentally.)
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter