Which is actually 'better'. Is there any difference between the two? Will the extra buffer improve performance? Advice me!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
8MB or 16MB Hard Disc cache?
- Thread starter Will Cheyney
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The bigger buffer will help burst access to a file you are already looking at, or to parts of a file further on you haven't got to yet because they are in the buffer. It makes things faster, normally not very noticable but why not get 16MB unless price prohibits you.
I've seen some benchmarks (I can't seem to find them right now, but I'll keep looking). The 16MB cache is faster, but not noticeably faster for normal day-to-day use. It was really noticeable when doing stuff like video encoding. I'd say that for the normal user, the slightly higher price doesn't justify it right now (unless you get a really good deal). I'd rather get a few more Gigs of storage for the same price.
They you really do have a dilemma. The extra cache will help a little when playing and recording at the same time (you can do that can't you?Will Cheyney said:
) But, you may want to store more shows for longer. This is going to have to be a personal decision.
All depends on how well the cache is tuned to your specific use.
A smaller cache that actually fits your needs better may help out more than a larger cache scheme that records a lot of misses.
But the cache is the only thing that operates at the max bus speed, after that it is the mechanical limit of the drive.
If you score a lot of cache misses, you are slowing yourself down by quite a bit.
A smaller cache that actually fits your needs better may help out more than a larger cache scheme that records a lot of misses.
But the cache is the only thing that operates at the max bus speed, after that it is the mechanical limit of the drive.
If you score a lot of cache misses, you are slowing yourself down by quite a bit.