Really... doesn't matter. I've heard some people talking about getting a 32 MB version over 16 MB because of the performance increase... or wishing there was a 16 or 32 MB version of a certain drive because "obviously, it wouldn't cost much more and it would be faster."
Not really. This has been observed for a fairly long time... even the jump from 2 MB to 8 MB yielded practically nothing.
In fact, sometimes larger caches seem to show slight decreases in speeds... rarely do they show an increase. Usually it's a 0.0% difference.
Tom's Hardware did a comparison between 8 MB and 16 MB caches a while back (well, not -that- long ago), which I figured some might find interesting.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/understanding-hard-drive-performance,1557-5.html
The point is, there's no reason to spend extra money on extra cache, because it won't make a difference 99% of the time.
Just thought some might be interested.
Not really. This has been observed for a fairly long time... even the jump from 2 MB to 8 MB yielded practically nothing.
In fact, sometimes larger caches seem to show slight decreases in speeds... rarely do they show an increase. Usually it's a 0.0% difference.
Tom's Hardware did a comparison between 8 MB and 16 MB caches a while back (well, not -that- long ago), which I figured some might find interesting.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/understanding-hard-drive-performance,1557-5.html
The point is, there's no reason to spend extra money on extra cache, because it won't make a difference 99% of the time.
Just thought some might be interested.