# 32mb cache benefits?



## MilkyWay (Jun 15, 2008)

is there any benefits of having 32mb cache on your hard drive over 16mb?

im going to do a quick search hopefully ill find something

when i get my new hard drive its going to be a maxtor 500gb 32mb sata2, this is going from a 8mb cache seagate 7200.9 250gb ill know for sure


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 15, 2008)

faster data access apparently from having a larger cache because it is storing more data to be processed read/wrote by the hard drive

also apparently hard drive cache is like cpu cache more the better


----------



## J-Man (Jun 15, 2008)

Yeah more cache is like more memory on the CPU yup.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 15, 2008)

WAIT. Benchmarks have shown that in 99% of situations 32MB cache is no better than 8MB.  It really depends on what you are doing with the HDD.  If you have a 8MB HDD you might be disappointed that upgrading to 32MB HDD doesnt bring about any noticeable improvements.  The larger cache is (now cheap) actually more a marketing gimmick than a real world benefit.

UNLIKE CPU cache where there is both INSTRUCTION and data being cached, in a HDD, the cache is mainly used for delayed write. The read cache is relatively unused because the PC can use the data thats coming off the HDD as fast as the HDD can give it... the HDD doesnt need to hold it in cache until the PC is ready.  Although there are "read ahead algorithms" to help predict the next data the PC needs, in practice the PC has asked for it already.

Check benchmarks of HDD. On "read" you will see very very little performance gain from 8MB to 16B or 32MB.  However,  random access "reads and writes" are improved due to the delayed write.

On SATA, NCQ (reorganising the commands for optimal disk access and caching the results) makes cache more effective.  So remember to turn on NCQ if you have a disable/enable option in your BIOS and/or drivers.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 15, 2008)

Well from what i have seen 8MB to 16MB no noticeable difference. Either way ya look at it  it still has to take the data of the disk sooner or later or else were it get the data from in the 1st place.


----------



## Laurijan (Jun 15, 2008)

Doesnt SATA, NCQ make data loss at power loss more likely?


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 15, 2008)

^^ y

Asrocks comment is sort-of-right. If you buy a NEW HDD today with 16MB or 32MB cache to replace an HDD that is a couple of years old, the new drive will be ZOOMZOOMZOOM compared to the old one. But that's not the cache... just a modern drive, with better access times, and much higher data density that is driving better read speed.

Check this review: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/understanding-hard-drive-performance,1557-5.html

16MB cache drive NOT faster than 8MB.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 15, 2008)

so it dosnt do much then?
whats the point in getting a 32mb cache hard drive then?


----------



## mk_ln (Jun 15, 2008)

no point really; seems to be a marketing gimmick atm.


----------



## Disparia (Jun 15, 2008)

MilkyWay said:


> so it dosnt do much then?
> whats the point in getting a 32mb cache hard drive then?



You rarely get to choose how much cache comes on a drive 

I wouldn't pass up a Samsung F1 or Seagate 7200.11 because they could _get by_ with 8 or 16MB.


----------

