question about hdd

[Destroyer^]

im going to buy a new hdd as mines dieing ok i want a sata hdd but looking at option ive decided for either:

sata 150,16mb cache, 200gb western digital

or
sata 300, 8mb cache, 160gb western digital

now wat im wondring is, is the extra transfer rate that the sata 300 gives worth having only 8mb cache? or would having a sata 150 but 16mb cache be better?

if any1 know of ne better hdd plz post i have roughly 70 quid to spend

[DanceswithUnix]

SATA300 buys you approximately nothing in performance as neither drive can saturate it.

[Destroyer^]

so the 200gb 16mb cache WD would be the best hdd to go for ?

[Jonny]

I would, personally. The extra space/cache will give you more of an advantage than the transfer rate, which would not be maxed out anyway.

[Dark Horse]

Saying SATA 300 just means it supports the protocol, not that it actually uses it. Most drives are hardly approaching the SATA 150 limit at the moment...

The 16mb cache and extra storage is much more important.

[Woodchuck2000]

What model are they both? I was under the impression that all WD hard drives with 16Mb cache supported SATA-II by default...

If those specs are correct though, go for the 16Mb buffer every time.