8MB vs. 16MB Buffer Cache

[Patrick Wolf]

For the record, I know next to nothing about HD's.

I'm looking to buy a new HD with at least 160GB and I want it to be fast for games. .My main reason for adding a new HD is I need more space, but it might as well be fast
It must be SATA or SATAII, probably doesn't matter. Under $120. My main question is if there is significant performance difference between 8MB vs. 16MB Buffer Cache for anything; games, editing, whatever?

And, any recommendations?

 

[Brian48]

There is a noticable difference in game load time and bootup, but not as much as going from 2mb to 8mb. Speaking for myself, I am so happy with my 250gb 16mb Maxtor PATA, I'm only going with 16mb from here on end.

 

[Matthias99]

There's some difference; mostly from the 16MB drives being newer all-around (so better firmware, better motors, higher platter density, etc.), but the cache helps a bit.

Unless there's a huge difference in price, there's no real reason not to buy one. But if you can save some money going with an 8MB drive, there are FAR better things to spend cash on in terms of upping gaming performance than your hard drive.

 

[Ipno]

The WD2500KS is a great 250GB drive for under $100. It's a quiet, reliable drive that has great performance.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Oh yeah, and what about NCQ (Native Command Queueing)? Is this a nice thing to have or just a marketing gimmick?

 

[Bobthelost]

It's a bad thing for home users, a good thing for servers, if the drive has it you can turn it off, if it doesn't have it then you don't need to worry.

 

[obeseotron]

I know of no more comprehensive resource for hard drives than Storage Review's Performance Database. It will generate a custom comparison of any set of drives you are curious about. They generally review the top of any model line, but the performance is usually very similar across different capacities that just use different platter counts, so you can use the biggest version of a drive as a proxy to the performance of the rest of the line.

According to SR's tests NCQ usually HURTS single user performance. Not as sure about the cache, 8MB vs 2MB was a big deal, so I'd imagine it does have an impact.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Originally posted by: Ipno
The WD2500KS is a great 250GB drive for under $100. It's a quiet, reliable drive that has great performance.

After checking around and seeing that 250GB roundup at storagereview, I'm going to go with the WD2500KS. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'll use it as my main drive now and use my now old 80GB IDE for storage.

Thanks everyone.

Now, anyone know where I can get a cheap SATAII cable with a locking mechanism?

 

[BFG10K]

Go with 16MB if you can. Having said that I have a 74 GB Raptor with 8 MB and it still flies, even when compared to my 150 GB Raptor with 16MB.

 

[aniruddha23]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Go with 16MB if you can. Having said that I have a 74 GB Raptor with 8 MB and it still flies, even when compared to my 150 GB Raptor with 16MB.

Yeah. I can hear mine when its flying

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Go with 16MB if you can. Having said that I have a 74 GB Raptor with 8 MB and it still flies, even when compared to my 150 GB Raptor with 16MB.

The 8mb cache raptor has lower seek/access times than the 16mb version.

 

[palis]

I'm having this same question myself. I want to add a new drive and convert into a Raid setup. I already have a 8mb-buffer non-NCQ drive. Should I buy a 16mb-buffer NCQ drive or should I buy the same as before? The price different is only $5. This is a SATA Seagate 300GB. Thanks.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Don't the HD's have to be identical for a RAID setup?

 

[LIT4]

http://www.overclock.net/hard-drives-storage/70774-16mb-vs-8mb-cache-hd.html

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Brian48
There is a noticable difference in game load time and bootup, but not as much as going from 2mb to 8mb. Speaking for myself, I am so happy with my 250gb 16mb Maxtor PATA, I'm only going with 16mb from here on end.

Going from 2MB to 8MB is a four fold increase. But 8MB to 16MB is only a two fold increase. To see a comparable differace that you saw five years ago with 8MB buffers, they might have to increase from 8 to 32 megabytes.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Patrick Wolf
Don't the HD's have to be identical for a RAID setup?

Yes, except if they are run in JBOD.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: LIT4
http://www.overclock.net/hard-drives-storage/70774-16mb-vs-8mb-cache-hd.html

http://storagereview.com/articles/200601/250_1.html

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: Patrick Wolf
Don't the HD's have to be identical for a RAID setup?

No, for most controllers, they don't even need to be remotely similar (you could RAID a 2GB 4200 RPM 512KB cache ATA 2 drive with a 500GB 7200RPM 16MB cache ATA 6 drive if you wanted to). However, for optimal performance and results, they should be the same model.

My main question is if there is significant performance difference between 8MB vs. 16MB Buffer Cache for anything; games, editing, whatever?

Significant? Most certainly, no. Tangible? Even that is probably debatable, but since the 16MB models are the newest models, by default they should be the fastest, even without the additional cache so performance comparisons are difficult since they are apples to oranges usually. I would not buy a drive solely based on cache size.

 

[alimoalem]

good choice OP!

too lazy to quote and restate others cause it's 2a.m. but whatever they said is right

 

[mshan]

Would increased platter density (e.g. 80 gb platter vs. newer, more dense platters) make more of a (perceptible?) difference than the jump from 8 MB to 16 MB cache?