2mb cache v.s 8mb cache for desktop

[dan]

both the seagate barracuda and the samsung spinpoint offers drives in 2mb and 8mb models.

for the purposes of the desktop, how much of a performance gain is to be had with 8mb over 2mb cache. the price premiums of $10 seems pretty small between the models.

[fmah]

I couldn't tell you for sure, but I would go with the larger cache. Check out storage review they might have more insight on this.

http://storagereview.com

[DavidM]

Well dan, I'd say this little bit from SilentStorage would answer your question.

[nick705]

Well dan, I'd say this little bit from SilentStorage would answer your question.

Or here for an opposite view (from the same site, bizarrely... )

[kesv]

for the purposes of the desktop, how much of a performance gain is to be had with 8mb over 2mb cache.

This is a question that does not have a definitive right/wrong answer. As the pieces already linked above show there are arguments for both sides.

There are several issues that affect the effectiveness of the cache. One thing to consider is the filesystem used. Simple filesystems that only need to read and write to one place get the largest percentual boost from a larger cache. For example if comparing FAT/NTFS, FAT does get a more pronounced performance boost. Despite this there are several technical reasons for using NTFS.

Also one should consider the use the drive will be in. Streaming applications like a pvr will see little improvement as they only rarely need to seek. The basic property of cache is hiding latency. If your application isn't hurt by drive latency you will win nothing.

Actually a recent study conducted for IBM by W.W.Hsu and A.J.Smith concluded that the performance improvement of an 8mb cache against a 512kb cache is no more than 2%-9% depending on use. They suggest the caches on drives would have to be radically bigger (more than 1% of total storage) to show huge improvements. For the whole paper see http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/482/hsu.pdf (about 35 pages)

If you are planning to put drives in a raid configuration I've also seen some data indicating that raid diminishes the effects of drive cache further. However no data I've seen says that cache hurts performance. Therefore you might want to invest a little more for the additional percent or two.

Btw. I think a part of the reason that manufacturers have switched to bigger caches is that memory makers have stopped producing the smallest chips altogether. Drive manufacturers can get the best deal for the chips that are produced in the greatest volumes.

[dan]

thanks.

the 7200.7 single platter 8mb ATA cache i've only seen sold as a retail product.

i've never seen anywhere in the US the 8mb single platter SP80 the SP0812N as opposed to the SP0802N, which is 2mb.

has anyone seen the samsung sp80 8mb cache SP0812N?

[Ralf Hutter]

i've never seen anywhere in the US the 8mb single platter SP80 the SP0812N as opposed to the SP0802N, which is 2mb.

has anyone seen the samsung sp80 8mb cache SP0812N?

Nope, and it's not for the lack of trying. If you search the forums you'll find more than a few posts that I made during my long and fruitless search for one of those. I finally gave up looking and bought a SP1614N and have been very happy with it for the past 7+ months.

[dan]

i mostly searched in ebay, pricewatch and newegg. the 8mb single platter 80gb barracuda does exist but retail only, not oem.


quite honestly i do not need all that space of two platter.

well then a related question is how much quieter is single platter over double platter? how much quieter is the single platter 2mb cache SP0802N over the two platter SP1614N

why did you choose samsung over seagate?

[Ralf Hutter]

why did you choose samsung over seagate?

Because the Samsungs are much quieter than the Seagate 7200.7's, run cooler and have a three year warranty.

[fmah]

I wish they came in 200 or 250GB versions.