More Cache = Noticeably Better?

[whozyodaddy]

Ok, I have an option of these two DVD Burners:

Plextor 712SA SATA with 8M cache $62.99
NEC 3540A IDE with 2M cache $48.99

Will I notice a difference with the SATA having 6MB more cache? Does cache play a big role in DVD burning?

Thanks.

 

[deanx0r]

 

[deanx0r]

optical drives are always slow
more cache might make it a tad faster and reliable when burning, but it will still be slow

I really like the SATA interface of the plextor, but the pricing is kind of steep.

 

[MustISO]

More cache means your HD wouldn't have to be as fast but with today's modern drives and their underrun protection, I wouldn't worry about it. I have no issues with my NEC burner.

 

[whozyodaddy]

Cool, good to hear.

 

[eXx08]

Yes, more cache, better

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

You really don't need a DVD burner with an 8MB cache. You also don't need SATA; there's absolutely no need. IMO, just go with the NEC. It's a great burner at a great price.

 

[JSLIM]

sata is nice to have if your a neat freak.

 

[batmanuel]

SATA can also be a bit of a PITA when it comes to optical drives. Espeically if you are trying to install windows off of a SATA optical drive. It varies depending on how your SATA is set up (if it is native to the mobos chipset or is on a thrid party controller tacked on the mobo's PCI bus), but there is the potential for a lot of headaches if you plan to use it as your only drive.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

Originally posted by: JSLIM
sata is nice to have if your a neat freak.

You can always use round IDE cables...

 

[shud]

Round IDEs are still bulky.

Anyway, that NEC drive comes with a free newegg CD case. Not a bad free item.