Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: 16mb cache SATA or 8mb SATAII for hard drives

  1. #1
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    28,997
    Thanks
    1,473
    Thanked
    2,904 times in 2,353 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    16mb cache SATA or 8mb SATAII for hard drives

    Which is likely to make the most difference? More cache, or SATAII?

    Thanks,

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    in a box
    Posts
    754
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts
    tuff one, drives cant really make the full use of sata II speeds at the moment, so cache may be more important right now. Thats said once drives reach the full potential of sata or sata II then go for that, just my view and im sure so one probably has benchmarks to give a better indication

  3. #3
    Amateur photographer Hans Voralberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    1,889
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    11 times in 11 posts
    Have a look at this
    http://www.cluboverclocker.com/revie...i/T7K250/2.htm

    It nearly touch the speed limit of SATA so i guess to be a bit futureproof a SATAII would be a better decision.
    Primary kit:
    Fuji S5 Pro - Nikkor AF 50/1.8 - Nikkor AF 85/1.8
    Epson RD-1

    Film Kit:
    Leica M3 - Summicron 50/2 DR - Zeiss ZM 25/2.8 - M-Rokkor 40/2

    Olympus OM2n - Zuiko 50/2 Macro - Zuiko 50/1.4 - Zuiko 35/2.8

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,872
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked
    174 times in 130 posts
    • Butcher's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 3
      • CPU:
      • i7-4790K
      • Memory:
      • 8 GB Corsair 1866 MHz
      • Storage:
      • 120GB SSD, 240GB SSD, 2TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650W
      • Case:
      • Big Black Cube!
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
    Um it does 68MB/s at best. That's not "nearly touching" SATA speeds in the slightest.
    I'd go with the 16MB cache drive.

  5. #5
    Nox
    Nox is offline
    Vorsprung durch Technik
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    2,023
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    • Nox's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Yes
      • CPU:
      • Yes
      • Memory:
      • Yes
      • Storage:
      • Yes
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Yes
      • PSU:
      • Yes
      • Case:
      • Yes
      • Monitor(s):
      • Yes
      • Internet:
      • Yes
    I see 133MB/s burst which is 17MB/s off the sata cap - nearly touching? yeah, close enough in my books.

    Admitedly, this will be off the onboard cache, but i'd still say get the T7K250.

    Nox

  6. #6
    No-one's Fanboi Thorsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Neverneverland
    Posts
    2,749
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked
    93 times in 92 posts
    • Thorsson's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P8Z77-V PRO
      • CPU:
      • i5 3570k
      • Memory:
      • 2x8Gb Corsair Vengeance PC1866
      • Storage:
      • 256M4 SSD; 2Tb 7200RPM Barracuda; 2Tb Linkstation
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX970 SC
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX650
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Win10 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2515H
      • Internet:
      • Fibre Optic 30Mb
    Have Hitachi overcome the reliability problems with their drives? What's the warranty like?

  7. #7
    Nox
    Nox is offline
    Vorsprung durch Technik
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    2,023
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    • Nox's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Yes
      • CPU:
      • Yes
      • Memory:
      • Yes
      • Storage:
      • Yes
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Yes
      • PSU:
      • Yes
      • Case:
      • Yes
      • Monitor(s):
      • Yes
      • Internet:
      • Yes
    Hitachi had a reliability problem? I knew IBM did.

    I believe they are 3 years off the top of my head.

    Nox

  8. #8
    Amateur photographer Hans Voralberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    1,889
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    11 times in 11 posts
    Been using them for years without a problem. Realiable stuff.
    Primary kit:
    Fuji S5 Pro - Nikkor AF 50/1.8 - Nikkor AF 85/1.8
    Epson RD-1

    Film Kit:
    Leica M3 - Summicron 50/2 DR - Zeiss ZM 25/2.8 - M-Rokkor 40/2

    Olympus OM2n - Zuiko 50/2 Macro - Zuiko 50/1.4 - Zuiko 35/2.8

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,872
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked
    174 times in 130 posts
    • Butcher's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 3
      • CPU:
      • i7-4790K
      • Memory:
      • 8 GB Corsair 1866 MHz
      • Storage:
      • 120GB SSD, 240GB SSD, 2TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650W
      • Case:
      • Big Black Cube!
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
    Quote Originally Posted by Nox
    I see 133MB/s burst which is 17MB/s off the sata cap - nearly touching? yeah, close enough in my books.

    Admitedly, this will be off the onboard cache, but i'd still say get the T7K250.

    Nox
    Buying a drive for performance that you achieve less than 1% of the time seems misguided if you ask me.
    The hitachis are nice drives though.

  10. #10
    Nox
    Nox is offline
    Vorsprung durch Technik
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    2,023
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    • Nox's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Yes
      • CPU:
      • Yes
      • Memory:
      • Yes
      • Storage:
      • Yes
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Yes
      • PSU:
      • Yes
      • Case:
      • Yes
      • Monitor(s):
      • Yes
      • Internet:
      • Yes
    I think its about time WD brought out a new raptor - the 7200 rpm drives are certainly closing the gap. 2+ years ago, I swore by raptors, but now... I really cannot see the performance increase for the premium they are and don't think I could recommend them over a decent 7.2k rpm but I still use mine. Its a shame storage review have never done a T7K250.

    Nox

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    • OmarSantiago's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Striker Extreme
      • CPU:
      • Core 2 Duo 6750
      • Memory:
      • 4GB Black Dragon DDR
      • Storage:
      • Raptors
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800GTX
      • PSU:
      • PC P&C 750 Quad Silencer
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ09
    I agree, WD have been relying on the Raptor for too long as their BFG and need to bring a new one out soon sp I can succumb to peer pressure and buy some more. Menawhile I've taken delivery of 2 Maxtor Maxline III drives with 16MB cache and NCQ and to the naked eye it almost stacks up to Raptors in terms of raw speed in a RAID 0 array: the Raptor winning out in boot-up times and level loading for HL2. I'm keeping my Raptors as my boot array but will adopt the MaxLine III for apps as well as storage (going from 74Gb to 250 is disconcerting: I'm so used to conserving space the drive is almost empty now). Did I mention they're quiet?

    Okay, I admit it's not a professional review but this is.

    I like it
    Last edited by OmarSantiago; 01-11-2005 at 09:30 AM.

  12. #12
    MacDaddy! darrensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    1,694
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked
    43 times in 37 posts
    • darrensen's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte z77 UD3H
      • CPU:
      • i7
      • Memory:
      • 8gb DDR3
      • Storage:
      • Loads!
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 780 GTX
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 850Watt
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Storm Trooper
      • Operating System:
      • Win 7 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 24"
      • Internet:
      • Plusnet Fibre 80mb
    Get the best of both worlds!!

    250Gb Maxtor Maxline III 24x7 Reliability (7200rpm,16MB) SATA II NCQ - Lead (Pb) Free

  13. #13
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    28,997
    Thanks
    1,473
    Thanked
    2,904 times in 2,353 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps
    Hehe, I can't afford the best of both worlds My world is a world of compromise.. I just try to minimize the impact.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cardiff
    Posts
    156
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    I'd go for the 16Mb SATA drive.

    As someone already said, that 133MB/s burst speed is not important in the large scheme of things.

  15. #15
    Nox
    Nox is offline
    Vorsprung durch Technik
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    2,023
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    • Nox's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Yes
      • CPU:
      • Yes
      • Memory:
      • Yes
      • Storage:
      • Yes
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Yes
      • PSU:
      • Yes
      • Case:
      • Yes
      • Monitor(s):
      • Yes
      • Internet:
      • Yes
    nope, but i'd* still rate the T7K250 higher than any other 7.2k rpm drive at the moment. But.. the current gen are all so close, I really don't think anyone will really notice a great deal of difference.

    Nox

    *from reviews i've read

  16. #16
    xms
    xms is offline
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    44
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    16mb cache. SataII isn't needed yet. Drives need to improve their internal transfer rates a lot before they even use Sata bandwidth

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 27-08-2005, 02:26 PM
  2. 200gb sata 8mb cache
    By skuzgib in forum Retail Therapy and Bargains
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-02-2005, 11:43 AM
  3. Samsung SATA drives: True SATA?
    By eldren in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 23-12-2003, 02:39 PM

Posting Permissions

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