CDRLabs.com

Just wondering if anyone here knows if it is a great benefit to get an 8mb buffer as opposed to a 2mb, and what the difference is? Thanks!

8mb buffer is faster, but a bit more $$, (though there are many deals on the 8mb drives, bringing them to often lower prices than 2mbers.)

I have used various Maxtor hard drives, ranging from small 30GB models that are 5400 RPM, 7200 RPM, as well as 8MB Cache drives, and thier newest SATA drives. Each one was excellent for it's time, and is a great drive. I love my new 120GB 7200RPM 8MB Cache SATA drive.

The 8MB cache is deffinetly worth any extra amount of money, I simply couldn't go back to a 2MB now.

The 2 drives I'm looking at right now are:

Maxtor Diamond Max Plus 9 120 GB 7200RPM ATA133 - 8MB Cache - 3 Year Warranty

Maxtor Diamond Max Plus 80GB 7200RPM ATA133 2048k 8.5ms 1 Year Warranty

(cut&pasted from website)

The 80GB is $100(CDN) and the 120GB is $140(CDN)

It's strange that the 120GB with the 8MB cache has a higher seek time though?

I dunno what the seek time is on the 8MB Cache drive, but not only are you getting a bigger, and faster Hard Drive. You are also getting a 3 year warrenty vs a 1 year warrenty.

I have the 80GB version of the Diamond Max Plus 9, 8MB Cache, it is an excellent drive, I highly recomend it.

I work on computers and Xboxes for a living and we use alot of hard drives.I have used alot of Maxtors and the 8 meg is definately worth it but that isnt the only reason for buying it.I have had 3 Maxtors fail this year.I would definately buy the one with a 3 yr warranty. Maxtor was great with regards to the warranty service. They cross shipped me a replacement everytime 2nd day air.That is nice.I just bought my first hard drive that hasnt been in Maxtor in about 5 years.Its a Western digital.The Maxtors are faster with the 133 meg a sec top speed. MAxtor is one of the only companies that offers Ultra DMA 6 mode.

Hmm, I've read that there isn't much difference between ATA133 and ATA100. I've also experienced both, one with several Maxtor drives and the other with a couple Western Digital drives. I must say, the transfer rates, at least in Windows, rarely reach maximum speed, therefore the ATA133 shouldn't be much of a selling point for the Maxtor. Just my opinion, of course, not trying to start a heated, lengthy debate.

In regards to this thread's topic, I do like the 8MB cache over the 2MB. It does increase the drive's speed, not in terms of transfer rate, but in terms of how much it stores in its buffered memory. You don't *need* 8MB, but it's a nice touch.

I used to think 8 MB cache was a big feature, until my brother told me it wouldn't be that big of a difference vs. 2 MB.
I was planning to spend extra and get an 8 MB cache drive.

I read on Tom's Hardware (I believe) that unless you are running a server, (or I suppose - he didn't mention this - do a lot of disc intensive activities such as copying very large files and working with and authoring home videos for DVD burning e.g.) it isn't much of a difference; at least not that noticeable...
Feel free to disagree, since I haven't owned any 8 MB cache drives, or, more importantly, had the opportunity to test one side by side with a 2 MB model of the same capacity by the same manufacturer.


The RPM and seek times, are important, however.

Indeed, it depends on the type of user that you are. Most average users won't notice the difference. Heck, I didn't even notice a difference until I did a search on my whole hard drive in a DOS window. I did two searches back-to-back; the first search took 45-60 seconds, but on the second search it took, literally, a couple seconds. Why? Because all the information from the previous search was stored in the cache. That's why I say the 8MB cache is a nice touch, but not needed by any stretch of the imagination.

TheWizard wrote:Indeed, it depends on the type of user that you are. Most average users won't notice the difference. Heck, I didn't even notice a difference until I did a search on my whole hard drive in a DOS window. I did two searches back-to-back; the first search took 45-60 seconds, but on the second search it took, literally, a couple seconds. Why? Because all the information from the previous search was stored in the cache. That's why I say the 8MB cache is a nice touch, but not needed by any stretch of the imagination.

Thanks for the info on the search performance.
I mean that is a dramatic difference and isn't something only a power user would do.
The faster search (in cases where all the results fit in the cache) is probably the biggest benefit of a bigger cache then (I can't think of other similar situations), although I suppose in most cases one would probably only do a given search once.

I wonder what other dramatic performance advantages 8 MB could have over 2 (MB).