Is an 8MB cache HD worth it???

cycleman77

Senior member
Jan 16, 2001
352
0
0
I am looking at buying a new hard drive and I have narrowed it down to either the Maxtor or Western Digital. Both are 80GB and 7200rpm. The Maxtor is ATA133 while the WD is only ATA100. My motherboard only supports up to ATA100, so I'm not too concerned about that. The other difference between the two is the cache. The maxtor only has 2MB and the WD has 8MB. The Maxtor is goin for 78 bucks and the WD is goin for 87 bucks.

Basically my question is....Is the 8MB cache worth the extra money?

Thanks
 

bgeh

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 2001
2,946
0
0
imo, yes
i have one and the system feels more responsive than my old one with the Seagate 40GB Barracuda
 

pmailloux

Member
Nov 13, 2001
37
0
0
Although most reviews I have read say that it doesnt improve things alot, I believe every little bit helps when it comes to a fast responsive system, so I will put in my vote for the WD 80 8Mb cache drive, I have this drive and love it. I will also add that most reviews I have read say that the ata 133 thing with the maxtors are mostly just hype, no real performance increase when put to test.
 

Texun

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2001
2,058
1
81
I won't buy anything else now. I've use the 8 meg cache WD and Maxtor and they are both excellent performers. If you have a high end system you won't be dissapointed.

Do they really have a huge "WOW" factor? Not in my opinion, not unless you are moving up from an OEM drive or something old. In that case you will see it and feel it.
 

gf4200isdabest

Senior member
Jul 1, 2002
565
0
0
I can't believe you started a topic about whether it was worth it to spend an extra 9 dollars...If $9 means anything to you then it's probably not worth it for you...
 

Whitedog

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 1999
3,656
1
0
Would a Barton with 512k L2 out perform a Duron with 64k L2 Cache at the same clock speed?

Same difference.

I remember going from a 256k to a 512k cache hard drive... I was like WOW!

They didn't add the extra cache just to charge more money for it. There's a specific reason they added it. IT WORKS! :cool:
 

nowayout99

Senior member
Dec 23, 2001
232
0
76
ATA133 and ATA100 is non-issue because there's no quantifiable performance difference.

You're not really going to miss 9 bucks are you? The cache bump is appreciable, particularly with large files. But the Maxtor is likely quieter, so I would make a decision based on your priorities there. You're not going to make a wrong decision either way.
 

Oreo

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
755
0
0
I'd say it's definitely worth it. I've got a 2Mb Seagate 'Cuda IV and a 8Mb Maxtor DiamondMax 9 and there's a big difference in performance. Sure the Maxtor would be faster than the 'Cuda even with a 2Mb cache but I don't think that's the only difference. I boot up into WinXP in like 20-30 seconds with this Maxtor, that alone is worth $9 ;)
 

Jeff7181

Lifer
Aug 21, 2002
18,368
11
81
Absolutely positively 100% worth it. Nobody should be buying anything but an 8 MB cache hard drive as their primary drive now.
Don't put any emphasis AT ALL on the ATA100 or ATA133 rating... those are theoretical maximums. There's not a single IDE hard drive in existance that can saturate an ATA100 bus. ATA133 is just a selling point... you'd need at least 2 hard drives in RAID 0 to saturate an ATA100 bus. Pay no attention to the ATA spec unless you plan on using a large RAID 0 array.
 

Insidious

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2001
7,649
0
0
ATA 133
AGP 8X
8MB cache


marketing hype..... each and every one of them. (with the 8MB cache comming closer than the rest to actually meaning something)

-Sid

(It may even be that Dual Channel DDR and 256MB video cards belong on this list as well...... for now)
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
I looked long and hard for a 120GB/8MB 180GXP, not cuase of the performance, but cause of the 3 year warranty.
 

Jeff7181

Lifer
Aug 21, 2002
18,368
11
81
The way the hard drive cache works is the hard drive has a caching algorithm... it's a program that predicts what data will be needed next and loads it from the physical disk into the hard drive's cache so it can be read much quicker. However, the caching algorithm isn't always correct, some data gets put in cache that isn't needed, so it has to physically read the data you need from the disk anyway. However, with more cache, there's more room for the caching algorithm to store data that you may need, which increases the chances of something you need being in the cache. An 8 MB cache is no good if the caching algorithm sucks.
Then there's the fuction referred to as write caching, where files that need to be written to disk are sent and stored in the cache until the drive can physically write them to the disk... this isn't like RAM or virtual memory, cached writes only stay in the cache for milliseconds until the drive has finished it's previous read or write cycle.

What types of things benefit from an 8 MB cache? I/O intensive applications, games, pretty much anything that randomly and periodically needs info from the hard drive. You won't see much benefit, if any at all in benchmarks like Hard Drive Tach, because that measures the drive's ability to physically read from the disk. You may see a little benefit in transferring large files... but not much.

Effects of an 8 MB cache drive... Windows boots faster, programs and games load faster, if you don't have much RAM and Windows is forced to use virtual memory for a lot of programs they will feel faster.
 

Pseudodominion

Golden Member
Nov 15, 2001
1,160
0
0
IMO yes, because the price difference is not that much more and if buying retail, then its the only way to get the 3 year warranty anymore, which is the big plus to me.
 

Pseudodominion

Golden Member
Nov 15, 2001
1,160
0
0
Originally posted by: Insidious
ATA 133
AGP 8X
8MB cache


marketing hype..... each and every one of them. (with the 8MB cache comming closer than the rest to actually meaning something)

-Sid

(It may even be that Dual Channel DDR and 256MB video cards belong on this list as well...... for now)

While you are IMO pretty accurate in that statement. My vote was cast in favor of 8mb HDD's for the simple fact that for a few more dollars you get a 3year warranty instead of the 1 year on the 2mb models. I do agree that performance is so minimal of an increase that it really shouldn't be factored too heavily into the equation. 3 Years of piece of mind though is a heavy + side.

 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Originally posted by: Insidious
ATA 133
AGP 8X
8MB cache


marketing hype..... each and every one of them. (with the 8MB cache comming closer than the rest to actually meaning something)

-Sid

(It may even be that Dual Channel DDR and 256MB video cards belong on this list as well...... for now)



Agp 8x yes
133ata yes

8mb cache....no its not hype.

These drives have been tested to the max and every single review shows without a doubt that the 8mb cache drives are faster.
 

Redviffer

Senior member
Oct 30, 2002
830
0
0
It's true that you can benchmark them and see the difference, but I doubt you will "feel" the difference when your using the computer for about 99% of the tasks that most people do. If your a multimedia/photoshop then you will notice the difference, other than that, just by benchmarks.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Originally posted by: Redviffer
It's true that you can benchmark them and see the difference, but I doubt you will "feel" the difference when your using the computer for about 99% of the tasks that most people do. If your a multimedia/photoshop then you will notice the difference, other than that, just by benchmarks.

Totally disagree. My maps load much faster. Opening and closing programs is quicker. A noticeable difference. Not to add my machine boots quicker. Even burning cds from my hard drive is faster.
 

Insidious

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2001
7,649
0
0
ya know, as I read the extreme difference in experiences with the posters in this thread I am struck with the notion
that something besides the size of the HD cache must be comming into play.

I know that on my machines, even ATTO has a difficult time demonstrating any (significant) difference in performance. Certainly there
is no noticable difference in WindowsXP or game loading times.

To compare, I have used Ghost to copy from the array to the single WD800JB, ran that for a while, then used Ghost to copy from there to a single WD400BB and ran for a while, then back to the WD800JB and finally back to an array (Raid-0) of the two WD400BBs.

In ALL cases, my writes topped at just over 60MB/sec. the reads topped at about 35MB/sec on a single WD800JB and 32MB/sec on a single WD400BB. (about 57MB/sec on the array)

ATTO was used for the measurements.

I have to wonder about the posters who are seeing such a difference. Do they actually have both drive types to compare in their system? Is there system not up to the task of maxing out these drives? (or is mine for that matter...)

Whatever the case, it is clear that more than just the cache size of the HDs is being compared if we are to assume there are no "little white lies" scattered throughout this thread.

-Sid
 

Alkali

Senior member
Aug 14, 2002
483
0
0
Why on earth do you assume a conspiracy as to why people think [*know*] that 8MB cache HDD's are better?

Is'nt it, as the very basic level, obvious?
A Pentium 4 with 512kb cache or a Pentium 4 with 1MB cache..... - Which would you choose?