Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Is 8MB cache REALLY that good?




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    For those who have been mulling over the idea of picking up one of the 80GB WD drives with the 8MB cache, but don't know if there is any real difference, there is. After picking one up myself, I compared it to a Seagate Barracuda IV drive, which isn't really a slouch in it's own right. The results are below in the screens I took of HD Tach 2.61

    Oh, and for those who are diehard Sandra fans, the results were something like this:
    * Seagate - 22,833
    *WD - 32,230

    Simple math tells us that the new WD drive scored a very impressive 41.1% higher than the Seagate. :D
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    494

    Default

    the seagates have always been significantly slower, but quite:)

    the new 7200s are somewhat faster though

  3. #3

    Default

    Quiet yes, and also extremely reliable... I've used seagate drives for YEARS and have yet to have to RMA one single drive... only screwed one seagate drive, and that was due to well, my own stupidity at the time, I physically damaged the drive (remember kids, drinking and computing don't mix :D) IBM drives, fast yes, I've had to send back plenty in the last 6 years. Fewer problems with the IBM drives i've used, than with the maxtor's i've had... but that's a whole other topic :)

    Oh and so ya know :) My score for my 60GB Seagate Barracuda IV, 7200rpm, 2MB cache, was 26540 in sandra... a far cry from 22,833 :) (Oh and that was with accoustic managment enabled... I'm sure if I disable it, and run that test again, I'll score an extra few points)
    <font size=1>Pentium 4 2.53GHz @ 3.515GHz (FSB: 185; VCore: 1.725)</font>
    <font size=1><a href="http://www.thermaltake.com/products/heatsink/v7plus.htm">ThermalTake Volcano 7+</a></font>
    <font size=1><a href="http://www.albatron.com.tw/product/PX845PEV_800.asp">Albatron PX845PEV-800</a></font>
    <font size=1>512MB Samsung DDR333 @ DDR370</font>
    <font size=1><a href="http://www.ati.com/products/pc/radeon9700pro/">Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB</a></font>
    <font size=1><a href="http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/proddetail.html?prodkey=ASC-29160">Adaptec 29160 Ultra160 SCSI Controller</a></font>
    <font size=1><a href="http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/marketing/detail/0,1081,321,00.html">Seagate ST373405LW 73GB U160 SCSI</a></font>
    <font size=1>Enermax EG465P-VE 450watt PSU</font>
    <font size=1>CPU Temp (100%): 39 C; HDD Temp (100%): 31 C (100%); Chipset Temp (100%): 32 C</font>

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    78

    Default

    My Maxtor 120GB 7200rpm 8mb buffer is noticably quicker than my WD 120mb 7200rpm with only a 2 mb buffer, I've tried both seperatly on the same system and beleive me there is a big difference in the speed programs will open up, plus the 8 mb cached drive is so quite compared to the clicking, overworked 2mb drive, its amazing. 8 mb cache is the way to go for the larger drives in my opinion, I'm not sure if it would be as noticable on smaller drives.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    85

    Default

    one way to look at the difference between 2mb cache vs 8mb is a SDRAM vs DDR.. and there is a difference there

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aznx
    the seagates have always been significantly slower, but quite:)

    the new 7200s are somewhat faster though
    The Seagate drive tested was a 7200RPM model.
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    I have a WD Protege 40GB (5400rpm) here and it does better than the Barra IV 60GB hdd I have which turned me to WD fulltime. The WD BB series is now my selected budget system hdd while the JB series is for outright performance systems (numbers can't be ignored especially when ya can feel it as well). Sorry but Maxtors tend to die real quick when the PCI bus is overclocked and I like my PCI bus pumped a bit.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    494

    Default

    lol darth, not the seagate ata iv...the 7200.7s are faster, the iv is an older generation

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,489

    Default

    I'm using a 40JB for my job's comp at my desk and man...when you compare it to my other co workers' computers...good stuff...total ownage.
    - Damien

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •