SATA1/2, 8mb vs 16mb Cache...

Zertz · Post by **Zertz** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:03 pm

Is there a real performance increase between:

- SATA and SATA2
- 8 mb and 16 mb cache

And I have the choice to go with Western Digital or Seagate, which one should I get? Or are they basically the same?

bubba · Post by **bubba** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:46 pm

can't answer on the sata to sata2, but on the cache and brand the 16 would be better than the 8, and I prefer seagate but a fare amount of folks like the WD

werty316 · Post by **werty316** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:07 pm

There is a noticable difference between SATA1.5 and SATA3.0 but even so pretty much all newer SATA HDs are SATA3.0.

Both WD and Seagate make great drives but I liek Seagate more since I had a bad experience with a WD HD.

DaIceMan · Post by **DaIceMan** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:40 pm

I've had 4 WD's fail in 2 years. I've had 1 Seagate that I rec'd (mostly) DOA.

Seagate drives are fast, quiet, and are found on sale quite often. The drive I have in my gaming rig is 320GB SATA3.0 16mb cache and it's working great. Folding rig is a 250GB SATA3.0 8mb cache, again, no problem. Storage drive on my main machine, 320GB IDE 8mb cache, no problems. All are Seagate.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi ... rder=PRICE

That should get you were you need to be. Choose the size you want and run with it. ;)

Zertz · Post by **Zertz** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:57 pm

Thanks guys

Can't buy on newegg though, we have a local shop around here that sells OEM stuff and has pretty good prices

kenc51 · Post by **kenc51** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:57 am

There's no real world difference between SATAI and SATAII (150mb/300mb)
SATAII only gives more performance in burst rate....ie. when data is accessed initially. (this has nothing to do with access times)

No HDD comes close to using all of the available bandwidth that sata2 provides (300mb/sec)
Desktop usage only relies on sustained transfer rates and in some cases access times.
The cache helps improve both access times (with small files) and overall sustained transfer rates.
Look for a HDD with 16mb cache and large capacity. The larger HDD's have better transfer rates due to more data per square inch....ie. the drives head moves less compared than a small drive for the equivalent speed.

I always go for Seagate as they have a 5yr warranty, to me this shows they have faith in their products! WD are also good, but don't have the same warranty.

Zertz · Post by **Zertz** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:28 pm

Thanks for all that info kenc

I'll probbaly get a 320GB Seagate SATA1 or 2 depending on price difference with 16 mb cache.

NAiLs · Post by **NAiLs** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:47 am

I just wanted to extend my props to Seagate over WD also. Aside from the warranty, the Seagate seem to have better lives over the WD drives. I've had 4 WD drives fail in the past 2 years also, and zero Seagate. I've even got some Seagate drives that are many moons old and still kickin' as if they were brand new.

moon111 · Post by **moon111** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:53 pm

The harddrive company I worked for almost couldn't get a failure in the lab. They chalked up most of their failures to one thing, handling. From getting the harddrive from the factory to the consumer is the determining point. At one point, a computer company was returning a massive amount of drives. Upon inspection, they found out the OEM had made the drive cage just slightly too small. So during assembly, they were using rubber mallets to beat them into position. With drives so big now, I'm sure vibrations and heat are bigger determining factors then ever before. Most people can't get two drives under controlled circumstances to really say which one is better then the other.