Jump to content


Photo

Does The Xbox Even Use The 8mb Cach


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Grim05

Grim05

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 03 November 2003 - 10:22 PM

Does the xbox even use the 8mb cach on the drive or is it a waste of money no guessing i want facts.



?? blink.gif

#2 laxb0y1o

laxb0y1o

    X-S X-perience

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Interests:jaguarsin2001<br>Perplexer<br>skierdb526 <br>Xeero<br>akillamuthafucca<br>frop<br>thefatness<br>
  • Xbox Version:v1.0

Posted 03 November 2003 - 10:46 PM

waste of money and it is hotter then a 5400 2 meg

#3 dewmonger

dewmonger

    X-S Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 841 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 12:26 AM

Get whatever is cheaper. Cache and rpm speed have little to no difference in xbox.

#4 Grim05

Grim05

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 03:59 AM

you guyz helped out a lot thinks for you input you just solved what i have thought was true all along. wink.gif

#5 UnknownShadow

UnknownShadow

    X-S Young Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 32 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 02:17 PM

QUOTE (laxb0y1o @ Nov 4 2003, 12:46 AM)
waste of money and it is hotter then a 5400 2 meg

God, the amount of INCORRECT info on this board is amazing. Of course the XBOX will take advantage of the 8MB cache. You guys don't seem to have any idea of how cache works!

In simplified terms...
When your XBOX goes looking for data from the hard drive, it will always check the hard drive cache FIRST. If the data that it needs is in the cache then it can read that MUCH MUCH faster than having to find it on the drive. Obviously, the bigger the cache the better chance you have of the needed data being there.


Having said that, despite the fact that the XBOX will indeed use the extra cache, I do agree that the speed difference is pretty small. But for someone who has to get every last bit of performance out of their XBOX, the extra $20 bucks for a drive with 8mb cache is probably worth it.

#6 UnknownShadow

UnknownShadow

    X-S Young Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 32 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 02:20 PM

QUOTE (laxb0y1o @ Nov 4 2003, 12:46 AM)
waste of money and it is hotter then a 5400 2 meg

By the way, if a 7200rpm hd is a waste of money, how come your sig contains the following...

HardDrive: Maxtor II 7200RPM 250GB locked



#7 Grim05

Grim05

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 03:52 PM

WTF one person is saying differnt. SO does the xbox use it or not?

Edited by Grim05, 04 November 2003 - 03:53 PM.


#8 chefelf

chefelf

    Brandishing the Triforce of Modding

  • Head Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,407 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York, NY
  • Interests:Video Games, Web Design, Writing, Cycling, Hardware Modification, Building Computers, Music
  • Xbox Version:v1.3
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 04 November 2003 - 04:31 PM

Well unfortunately you've opened up an area that causes a lot of debate. I think both views have grains of truth.

However, remember that the Xbox wasn't designed to play games off of the hard drive. It was designed to play off the stock 16x DVD drive. So a lot of people think, "Hey, if I put a faster hard drive, more RAM or a faster DVD drive, will my games play faster?" Well not really. Things may work more efficiently on the hardware level, the specs may be better but if you are using your Xbox to play Xbox games I think that those specs are pretty much going to be lost. The difference in performance, I would say, would be negligible.

That's my take on the situation. Bottom line, the extra cache can't hurt but it can't necessarily help either. The temperature concerns are really the only concerns and for the most part I don't think the temp issue is really that big a deal. Sure a 7200RPM will run a little hotter, but I don't think hot enough to disrupt anything. If you are paranoid you can always put in a HDD cooler of some sort.

#9 thejt

thejt

    X-S Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.2

Posted 04 November 2003 - 05:24 PM

The following is a reply to a similar post. I personally believe the 8mb cache would be benificial when using ATA100.


I would like to add my opinion on this topic. I think there is alot of people replying to this thread who really dont know what they are talking about. So.... now to get to the point.

QUOTE (LEDHaywire @ Aug 18 2003, 03:32 AM)
there is no real speed increase from an ide cable switch. data is only gonna shoot through at ata100 speeds.


WRONG! I love XS forums, If it wasnt for them I probably wouldnt have a modded xbox. There is a weath of good information here.. BUT there is also alot of garbage!

So Haywire.. If the XBox comes with a ATA33/66 40 pin cable.. HOW is the data gonna "shoot" throught at UDMA 100 speeds???? ITS NOT!

QUOTE (WodMan @ Aug 18 2003, 07:35 AM)
You can change the cable, however the bottleneck does not lie in the cable, rather in the chipset that is on the system board. Changing the cable will not increase performance.


WRONG AGAIN!!

Ive been researching the actual specifications of the Xbox southbridge and have found the following.

The XBox uses the NVidia MCPX chipset which DOES support UDMA100 transfer rates. So apparently thats not the bottleneck.

The MCPX is virtually the same as its PC bigger brother Nforce's north and southbridge (IGP and MCP) combined. Here is more info.
http://www.inqst.com...rce/article.htm

QUOTE (theBloodShed @ Aug 18 2003, 09:16 PM)
Lets put it this way, cables are a hell of a lot cheaper than controllers. Do you honestly think that MS would impliment a highspeed IDE controller (66100133) but use a 40-pin cable that can only handle ATA33? That would be pointless.


YES! THEY WOULD!! MS didnt design the chipset for the Xbox.. and being that the chipset that NVidia designed supports ATA100 I would find it highly unlikely to re-engineer it to a lower specification. But.. MS DID have to source IDE cables and obviously wanted to save some cash. Which is logical on their behalf because 99.99999% of data transfer on the "factory" xbox is from a ATAPI dvd drive only capable of DMA33 anyway!!!! Now that alot of us are using the hard drive for the main means of storage it makes all kinds of sense to have the ATA100 cable.

So.. with that said.. I look at it like this... Hmm the IDE controller supports ATA100, If you have a 80 pin ATA100 cable and a ATA100 Hard drive... why wouldnt you be gettting ATA100 transfer rates. Since there is no real benchmark I guess we wont know until someone writes a HDD benchmark app for the Xbox. I will say that it seems to load my games faster since the upgrade... BUT... were talking milliseconds at times if that so I could be halucinating or just being hopeful.

I know Im using the ATA100 even if for some reason it doesnt give me ATA100 transfer rates... cuz after all.... It is a higher quality cable right!


#10 Grim05

Grim05

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 06:00 PM

See its good for one to know if 8mb cach is worth it or not some places in differnt areas have not lowered the cost of the hd. 8mb cach is good i think if you are going to put the hd in your pc in the future when the console has been out lived and no more games are out for it. But is it worth it for the black box thats another story it seems i have seen i alot of good theory's but from one what i see nobody can say for sure sad.gif . Maybe no one can or realy knows

#11 dewmonger

dewmonger

    X-S Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 841 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 06:12 PM

Just a couple of other things to add. Since most of the newer drives are now 8Mb cache and is now pretty much the industry standard, the price is about the same (or less with rebates) than those with 2Mb cache. You can get a 120Gb drive for about $60-$80 after rebates nowadays. Since the price is the same, go with the 8Mb cache. As mentioned before, it will be the same or better performance than the 2Mb. You can't go wrong with it, since it will definitely not be any worse. If in the future, you decide to take it out and use it for the PC instead, then the 8Mb will definitely be better.

Regarding the rpm speed. Just go with the 7200. Since 5400 drives are now rare to find, they will actually be more expensive than the 7200 drives. Yes, the 7200 may be able to read a little faster than the 5400, but remember that since you are using a hard drive now instead of reading from the DVD drive, the difference between improvement from the DVD to hard drive upgrade is much much bigger than the difference between the 5400 and 7200 rpm speeds. In general, you will not notice much significant difference in having a 7200 and 5400 drive because you will notice more the decrease in load time from reading from the hard drive. Is possible saving an additional 1/2 to 1 second really that important?

Regarding the heat issue. Most people have 7200 drives and have not had any overheating. Just to be safe, you could add a cooling mod to your system if you wish.

Having said these things, let me restate my opinion again. Get whatever is cheaper. Cache and rpm speed have little to no difference in xbox. If you have the choice and performance is more important than money, then go with the 8Mb cache, 7200 rpm drive. That is what I use. If you find a special deal that will save you money if you get either a 2Mb cache of 5400 rpm drive and would prefer to save money and don't mind possibly waiting that extra second or two, then get it.

#12 chefelf

chefelf

    Brandishing the Triforce of Modding

  • Head Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,407 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York, NY
  • Interests:Video Games, Web Design, Writing, Cycling, Hardware Modification, Building Computers, Music
  • Xbox Version:v1.3
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 04 November 2003 - 06:14 PM

I agree 100% with dewmonger. A million different arguments could be made about temperature and tiny performance aspects but I strongly believe that when it all boils down to it the subtle differences matter very little on either side of the debate.

#13 dewmonger

dewmonger

    X-S Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 841 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 06:16 PM

QUOTE (Grim05 @ Nov 4 2003, 12:00 PM)
See its good for one to know if 8mb cach is worth it or not some places in differnt areas have not lowered the cost of the hd. 8mb cach is good i think if you are going to put the hd in your pc in the future when the console has been out lived and no more games are out for it.

Based on your last post, I would say if it is less than $20 difference, get the 8Mb. If it is more than $20 difference, get the 2Mb.

#14 rzyzzy

rzyzzy

    X-S Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 944 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA
  • Xbox Version:v1.3

Posted 04 November 2003 - 07:30 PM

There is a noticeable difference between a 5400 rpm drive and a 7200 rpm drive. I know this because I've modded systems both ways. I wouldn't pay alot more for that performance, but it is there, and anyone who says it isn't, obviously hasn't tried it for themselves. As for heating issues, I've never seen one with issues from a stock fan, although I mod my own for 12 volts now, because it's easy, and I like a cool box.

#15 Grim05

Grim05

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 10:02 PM

QUOTE (rzyzzy @ Nov 4 2003, 09:30 PM)
There is a noticeable difference between a 5400 rpm drive and a 7200 rpm drive. I know this because I've modded systems both ways. I wouldn't pay alot more for that performance, but it is there, and anyone who says it isn't, obviously hasn't tried it for themselves. As for heating issues, I've never seen one with issues from a stock fan, although I mod my own for 12 volts now, because it's easy, and I like a cool box.

7200 i know is what a man should have or get but the 8mb cach 2mb cach is what im wanting to know.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users