Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > IDE HDD: 16MB cache or ATA133?

Reply
Thread Tools

IDE HDD: 16MB cache or ATA133?

 
 
Martin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2007
I am considering buying a new HDD (parallel ATA, about 400-500 GB).
It looks that most disks have either 8MB cache with ATA100 or 16MB
with ATA133.
Which combination is better? I mean, which is more important for the
HDD performance - cache size (8 or 16 MB) or connection speed (100 vs.
133 ATA)?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Walter Mautner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2007
Martin wrote:

> I am considering buying a new HDD (parallel ATA, about 400-500 GB).
> It looks that most disks have either 8MB cache with ATA100 or 16MB
> with ATA133.
> Which combination is better? I mean, which is more important for the
> HDD performance - cache size (8 or 16 MB) or connection speed (100 vs.
> 133 ATA)?


It all depends upon usage pattern and other drive parameters (number of
heads, rpms). For storing large files ... like dvd images, movies and maybe
mp3s/pictures for direct "streaming" access, the cache size is not that
much important as continuous transfer speed. For booting a OS, or even more
database storage with lots of seeks and random access pattern, the cache
size and head positioning speed both rule.
--
vista policy violation: Microsoft optical mouse found penguin patterns
on mousepad. Partition scan in progress to remove offending
incompatible products. Reactivate MS software.
Linux 2.6.17mm,Xorg7.2/nvidia [LinuxCounter#295241,ICQ#4918962]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-20-2007
Walter Mautner wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>
>
>>I am considering buying a new HDD (parallel ATA, about 400-500 GB).
>>It looks that most disks have either 8MB cache with ATA100 or 16MB
>>with ATA133.
>>Which combination is better? I mean, which is more important for the
>>HDD performance - cache size (8 or 16 MB) or connection speed (100 vs.
>>133 ATA)?

>
>
> It all depends upon usage pattern and other drive parameters (number of
> heads, rpms). For storing large files ... like dvd images, movies and maybe
> mp3s/pictures for direct "streaming" access, the cache size is not that
> much important as continuous transfer speed. For booting a OS, or even more
> database storage with lots of seeks and random access pattern, the cache
> size and head positioning speed both rule.


Just a footnote. It wouldn't help much to get ATA133 if the motherboard
doesn't support it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Martin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-20-2007

> Just a footnote. It wouldn't help much to get ATA133 if the motherboard
> doesn't support it.


Of course it does, that is why I am asking

 
Reply With Quote
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-20-2007
Martin wrote:
>>Just a footnote. It wouldn't help much to get ATA133 if the motherboard
>>doesn't support it.

>
>
> Of course it does, that is why I am asking
>

Okay, after hearing that it's probably compatible, I'd go with the
faster transfer rate and larger cache. But don't expect miracles.
Today's hard drives are so fast that it takes some application that is
intensely hard drive specific to make the difference noticeable. I
remember times when it was a far off dream to get a 9GB SCSI drive
because they were so fast and could hold all the data on Earth, but were
very expensive. Now Walmart has drives that would put them to shame for
pocket change.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Plato
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-21-2007
Martin wrote:
>
> I am considering buying a new HDD (parallel ATA, about 400-500 GB).
> It looks that most disks have either 8MB cache with ATA100 or 16MB
> with ATA133.
> Which combination is better? I mean, which is more important for the
> HDD performance - cache size (8 or 16 MB) or connection speed (100 vs.
> 133 ATA)?


You're most lilely not to see a noticable difference either way. It
often depends on the file sizes that are being transferred and/or the
speed of your current in box HDDs and current pc setup/background apps
running at the same time.


--
http://www.bootdisk.com/


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GE 16MB Memory Stick - Not Recognized by USB Port Raymond Donzdorf Computer Support 1 11-12-2004 10:59 PM
Re: PIX-FLASH-16MB - can't get it to work : Serial number: 0 (0x0) Nolajc2000 Cisco 2 04-01-2004 06:40 AM
Re: EPROM for PIX-FLASH-16MB - can it be done? Brad Cisco 0 04-01-2004 02:50 AM
Question about flash card- Canon A60 w/16MB KOS Digital Photography 4 12-02-2003 02:38 PM
trade 64mb smart media for 16mb smart media cards wjva Digital Photography 1 08-20-2003 08:30 PM



Advertisments