superart

Trying to decide between Western Digital Caviar Black 32MB and 64MB ca

Recommended Posts

I'm looking for a drive for my new work computer. I mostly use it for CAD. I need about 500GB-1T. And am looking to stay around $150 total.

I am thinking my best bet right now would be the Western Digital Caviar Black. I'm tempted to get 2 of them and put them in RAID-1 in case one dies, but have not finalized that decision yet.

My main question is this: Is it worth it to get the 64MB of cache over the 32MB? Does it make a big difference? I tried to find a review or some other post that compares the two, but couldn't find anything. If anyone has any links or personal experience, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree, added cache doesn't necessarily equal increased performance. If you're working on that budget, I think it much more wise to RAID two more affordable drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAID controllers tend to have their own cache, so neither drive would be better or worse.

The extra cache probably only matters on whatever application the drive has been tuned for. Even then you're probably talking a difference only measurable in the most obsessive benchmarks.

That said for just $5 more I would probably buy the 64MB one too. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Echo echo echo....

For $5 get the higher cache/newer drive. It's not really worth thinking about much longer at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main question is this: Is it worth it to get the 64MB of cache over the 32MB? Does it make a big difference? I tried to find a review or some other post that compares the two, but couldn't find anything. If anyone has any links or personal experience, I'd appreciate it.

There are differences in terms of performance between the 32MB and 64MB cache drives. I have a WD1002FAEX 1TB 64MB and I will leave you here a quick benchmark of that drive made with CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1a (free).

wd1002faex.png

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64 © 2007-2010 hiyohiyo

Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [sATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 139.272 MB/s

Sequential Write : 137.015 MB/s

Random Read 512KB : 51.084 MB/s

Random Write 512KB : 90.335 MB/s

Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.432 MB/s [ 105.4 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.415 MB/s [ 345.4 IOPS]

Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 1.239 MB/s [ 302.4 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 1.291 MB/s [ 315.1 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: 20.7% (62.0/300.0 GB)] (x5) <All 0x00, 0Fill>

Date : 2011/02/03 21:31:06

OS : Windows 7 Home Premium Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

And here is a WD1001FALS 1TB 32MB cache benchmark that I found here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 © 2007-2010 hiyohiyo

Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [sATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 109.971 MB/s

Sequential Write : 108.012 MB/s

Random Read 512KB : 48.139 MB/s

Random Write 512KB : 71.042 MB/s

Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.704 MB/s [ 171.8 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.684 MB/s [ 411.1 IOPS]

Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 2.052 MB/s [ 501.1 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 1.833 MB/s [ 447.5 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [D: 0.0% (0.1/931.5 GB)] (x5)

Date : 2010/09/29 17:33:35

OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

Edited by lfbb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CDM may show a difference between 32MB and 64MB cache, but that doesn't mean the end user will notice or "feel" a difference. That's a large part of the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ifbb, I'm thinking that those two drives have two different platter data densities .. the sequential transfer rates are up too much on the 64MB vs 32MB.

We are talking about a small difference with caches. If you want the best real-world performance from a high capacity drive, just spend a bit more and get the 2TB Caviar Black which has 64MB and the Piezoelectric 'wrist' ..

Might want to wait a bit until the 3TB Black comes out so the price is lower.. or get the whitelabel drive on goharddrive.com for $99 , WD RE4 for $95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I forgot to say that the benchmark was made with the WD1002FAEX drive in silent mode(AAM parameter=128). The results in 'normal' mode(a little bit noisy) are:

wd1002faex.png

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64 © 2007-2010 hiyohiyo

Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [sATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 142.916 MB/s

Sequential Write : 139.494 MB/s

Random Read 512KB : 51.317 MB/s

Random Write 512KB : 90.831 MB/s

Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.696 MB/s [ 169.9 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.683 MB/s [ 410.8 IOPS]

Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 1.884 MB/s [ 460.0 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 1.684 MB/s [ 411.1 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: 20.5% (61.4/300.0 GB)] (x5)

Date : 2011/02/06 1:45:48

OS : Windows 7 Home Premium Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CDM may show a difference between 32MB and 64MB cache, but that doesn't mean the end user will notice or "feel" a difference. That's a large part of the conversation.

I believe all the WD1002FAEX drives are two platter drives which spin up faster and have higher throughput. The WD1001FALS used to be a 3 or 4 platter drive - I think those have been relegated to the blue series now but I would be inclined to pay the extra for the FAEX just in case. I wouldn't be so worried about the cache as much as having the newest version/highest areal density available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reliability database here (and indeed just about anything self-reported) is non-random and hence not statistically reliable or significant for actual reliability.

That said the newer Caviar Black 64MB's probably haven't been on the market long enough to get a real feel for failure trends anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now