IDE HDD: 16MB cache or ATA133?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Martin, Jun 19, 2007.

  1. Martin

    Martin Guest

    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)?
     
    Martin, Jun 19, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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]
     
    Walter Mautner, Jun 19, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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.
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Jun 20, 2007
    #3
  4. Martin

    Martin Guest


    > 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 :)
     
    Martin, Jun 20, 2007
    #4
  5. 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.
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Jun 20, 2007
    #5
  6. Martin

    Plato Guest

    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/
     
    Plato, Jun 21, 2007
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Experienced but Undocumented

    Re: SATA vs ATA133

    Experienced but Undocumented, Aug 27, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    643
    Experienced but Undocumented
    Aug 27, 2003
  2. Diehard

    sata 10k rpm vs ata133 7200rpm

    Diehard, Jan 5, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    52
    Views:
    2,061
    Night_Seer
    Jan 12, 2004
  3. Diehard

    MSI-6728 ata133 wont work

    Diehard, Jan 9, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,876
    Night_Seer
    Jan 9, 2004
  4. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    4,601
    Dan Evans
    Apr 2, 2006
  5. ashjas
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,130
Loading...

Share This Page