How significant is difference between 32mb and 16mb buffer on HD?

[imported_DangerMouse]

Hi
I ordered Western Digital 1000GB (1TB) 3.5 32Mb Buffer SATA II WD1001FALS for my new rig but it turned out they are not available at retailer. They offered me instead
Western Digital 1TB 3.5 16Mb Buffer SATA II WD10EACS.
32mb Hd's at the store available only from Samsung and Seagate. Question is is it worth it to switch from WD brand i came to trust? How much difference in performance 32mb offers?
Also, is something like Western Digital 640GB 3.5 7200Rpm 16Mb Buffer SATA II WD6400AAKS is more reliable than WD 1TB one above?
Please advise

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I don't think the difference in cache size would be that noticeable to you. However, the EACS is a Caviar Green, while the FALS is a Black. The Green will have power saving features that make it cooler and quieter, but the Black has one less platter and noticeably better overall performance numbers. If this is going to be a system drive, get the Black; for storage, the Green is more than adequate.

For smaller options, the WD6400AAKS is a good drive, but the WD6401AALS Caviar Black is newer and faster. I know nothing about reliability differences, but the 640GB Caviar Black is a great bang-for-buck drive with excellent performance.

I have both a WD6401AALS and a WD10EACS and have no complaints about either, for what they do.

 

[Elixer]

As was mentioned, cache size above 16MB doesn't really play that big of a role for normal users.

For reliability, it is basically a crap shoot. Either of those could fail. All HDs can & will fail.
I have yet to see one brand that sticks out over the other.