 |
 |
New hard disk: 8MB buffer make difference?
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm looking to get a 80Mb hard disk and they coem with and without 8Mb buffers. Is there a big difference between them? Worth the price? Primary use, importing (DV) video. Thanks.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes and no.
For normal file operations, you won't notice any difference, although you could probably measure one, depending on the operation. If you work with video a lot (the hd is too small for video IMHO), then this really might speed things up.
For normal stuff, nope.
|
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Also note that a larger cache means more heat. In a packed case, this could be a very bad idea. You're probabaly OK in a Powermac case, but I wouldn't put a large cache HD in an iMac, any model.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's mainly for video, importing and manipulating under FCP. I have a Powermac, but the hard disk will be placed right on top of teh other. Unless there's a big speed difference I don't see any point in getting it. Just want to check first if there is. Thanks.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
For video it would make sense. But 80 gigs is a bit small for DV material ...
Don't worry about the extra heat from the cache, that is nonsense. If a drive is hotter than the others, it's got different reasons (e. g. IBM drives tend to get hotter than others ... got nothing to do with cache).
|
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
If you're interested in the Western Digital Special Edition drives with 8 MB cache, many people have problems putting their computer to sleep with these drives installed. If you're interested I can show you a few place where people have had trouble with this.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Tronna
Status:
Offline
|
|
I have a WD:SE 120G model with the 8M cache in a 400MHz Sawtooth, and the thing runs like a charm. No problems sleeping, just nice, reliable and fast. Dunno about the noise, my machine has an 800 MHz updgrade card with fan, Radeon 8500 with fan, etc! 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well, you're doing video, so get the drive with the 8 meg cache.
I have a wd 120gig w/8 cache and im happy with it.
Get it just for the fact that you get a 3 year warranty as opposed to 1 year, not to mention the slight performance difference.
80 does seem awfully small for video though.
My 120 gig got filled up faster than you can say "megabytes".
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
I have a WD SE 8 Meg 100 GB running in a B&W G3 (Rev 2) with no problems. Even though the ATA/33 bus is probably a bottleneck, the drive is still very fast in everyday use.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus  Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
I do not believe the 8MB caches are worthwhile.
They only help in very few situations, primarily when writing small amounts of data -- video is NOT such an application!
I don't think it's worth it.
Please do a search for this topic. It's been covered about 80 gazillion times already. I'm closing this thread now.
tooki
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
