# SATA 3GB/s vs 6GB/s



## Zaspera (Aug 18, 2012)

Would I be better off getting a 500GB 16mb cache 6GB/s drive or a 1TB 32mb cache 3GB/s drive? I'm asking performance-wise..not storage obviously. Both are 7200rpm.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Aug 18, 2012)

Of all the factors that affect a drive's performance, cache is by far the least important. The most important factors are the spin rate (RPM) of the drive and the platter density. More spins per second = more data per second, and higher platter density means more data per spin = more data per second.

Cache is important, but once you get beyond a certain amount it doesn't really give you any better performance. Since cache memory is cheap, all the manufacturers include enough of it to optimize the performance of the drive. As a result, differences between one drive and another don't really make a noticeable real-world difference.

In fact, the most common reason for different cache sizes is because the platter density is different and so the drive needs more cache to hold "x" tracks worth of data. In this scenario the drive with more cache will perform better, but it's because of the higher platter density, not because of the extra cache.

Go with the 6GB/s - faster transfer rate. I see about 120-130mb/s on my 1.5TB 6GB/s WD drives. much faster then my samsung F3 which manages about 90mb/s


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Aug 18, 2012)

my samsung F3 averages 110-115 mb/s drives are rock solid also far cheaper than WD with newegg having them on sale for $70 on the F3s

SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 HD103SJ 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cac...

Caviar Black 6 Gb/s are still $110  $40 more for not much in return other than warranty.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Aug 18, 2012)




----------



## Zaspera (Aug 18, 2012)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> my samsung F3 averages 110-115 mb/s drives are rock solid also far cheaper than WD with newegg having them on sale for $70 on the F3s
> 
> SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 HD103SJ 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cac...
> 
> Caviar Black 6 Gb/s are still $110  $40 more for not much in return other than warranty.



That's why I was asking. I have an F3 in my cart right now due to the sale to replace the Caviar Blue I was originally planning on.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Aug 18, 2012)

F3 is faster or at least it SHOULD be than the Caviar Blue  Caviar blacks edge out the F3 however.


----------



## chevy350 (Aug 18, 2012)

I've got 2 Caviar Blacks in RAID0 for Steam and other apps and here's what they're getting, always had good exp with WD drives plus they were cheap at the time lol


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 18, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Of all the factors that affect a drive's performance, cache is by far the least important. The most important factors are the spin rate (RPM) of the drive and the platter density. More spins per second = more data per second, and higher platter density means more data per spin = more data per second.
> 
> Cache is important, but once you get beyond a certain amount it doesn't really give you any better performance. Since cache memory is cheap, all the manufacturers include enough of it to optimize the performance of the drive. As a result, differences between one drive and another don't really make a noticeable real-world difference.
> 
> ...



I agree with most of this, except that there is one thing that is less important than cache, and that is the SATA connection speed.

With mechanical hard drive, they simply are not fast enough to make the SATA connection type matter.  Even in your examples, the 130MB/s isn't even surpassing SATA 1.5GB/s speeds.  So the faster transfer rate of SATA 6GB/s doesn't make one bit of difference.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 18, 2012)

Zaspera said:


> Would I be better off getting a 500GB 16mb cache 6GB/s drive or a 1TB 32mb cache 3GB/s drive? I'm asking performance-wise..not storage obviously. Both are 7200rpm.


1TB 32mb 3 Gb/s drive

Space and cache is more important than connection speed for HDDs.  3 Gb/s is 375 MB/s--more than enough for even 15k RPM drives.


----------

