16MB cache vs. 32MB cache hdd

[fluffmonster]

So I installed Win7 on a 640gb caviar blue hdd (16MB cache) instead of the caviar black (32MB cache). The why is simple noobery.

The question is, would there ever be a performance difference? I want to move the image from the blue to the black but can I justify the effort? Thanks.

[MrDigital]

Assuming that the only difference between Blue and Black is cache size than no, you won't notice any performance difference.

[fluffmonster]

apparently the black has two processors, but I don't know what difference that would make either.

[kent1146]

You won't see a performance difference. Just leave the OS install as-is if you don't want to go through the effort.

You will need to jump to a WD Raptor (10,000rpm spindle speed, instead of 7,200rpm) or an SSD to see any noticeable speed increases. Cache size doesn't really impact drive speed.

[James]

You won't see a performance difference. Just leave the OS install as-is if you don't want to go through the effort.

You will need to jump to a WD Raptor (10,000rpm spindle speed, instead of 7,200rpm) or an SSD to see any noticeable speed increases. Cache size doesn't really impact drive speed.

The big reason to have a larger cache is to smooth out the writes of multiple small files by the OS without having to wait on the slow mechanical speed. (I.e. disk thrashing.)

That being said, as others have mentioned you won't see a huge difference in performance. Usually if you see a difference in performance between two drives, one with larger cache, it's because the one with the larger cache is also newer technology. Newer tech means refined controllers, higher areal density, etc.