What happens when I have a UDMA5 & UDMA2 drive on the same channel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter William Cheng
  • Start date Start date
W

William Cheng

Hi all,

I have a newer WD1200JB (UDMA5) master with a Quantum 30Gb (UDMA2) drive on
my primary channel. However when I run a benchmark (Sandra) on it, I get
roughly UDMA2 throughput on both drives - does this mean that the newer WD
drive capable of UDMA5 is only running at the lowest common denominator on
the channel?

Thanks,
William
 
I have a newer WD1200JB (UDMA5) master with a Quantum 30Gb (UDMA2)
drive on my primary channel. However when I run a benchmark (Sandra) on it,
Click to expand...

Sandra is a completely hopeless hard drive benchmark, try HDTach.
I get roughly UDMA2 throughput on both drives - does this
mean that the newer WD drive capable of UDMA5 is only
running at the lowest common denominator on the channel?
Click to expand...

Its more likely to be just the fact that Sandra is useless.

That lowest common denominator effect shouldnt be happening.
 
Previously William Cheng said:
Hi all,
Click to expand...
I have a newer WD1200JB (UDMA5) master with a Quantum 30Gb (UDMA2) drive on
my primary channel. However when I run a benchmark (Sandra) on it, I get
roughly UDMA2 throughput on both drives - does this mean that the newer WD
drive capable of UDMA5 is only running at the lowest common denominator on
the channel?
Click to expand...

Unlikely. The drived do not influence each other during the burst-phase
data transfer). The command phase is done at lower speed anyway.

Maybe the BIOS is set to limit xfer to UDMA2 or you only
have a 40 conductor cable?

Also try some other benchmarking software for comparison.

Arno
 
Its not free and its designed for Win9x/ME, the NT/2000 version is an extra
fee, and I thought the VXD module for XP is slightly different than
NT/2000 - correct me if I am wrong though.
 
William said:
Its not free and its designed for Win9x/ME, the NT/2000 version is an extra
fee, and I thought the VXD module for XP is slightly different than
NT/2000 - correct me if I am wrong though.
Click to expand...


Have you tried it?


-WD
 
| Is there a freeware utility that anyone would suggest over Sandra?
www.bcmcom.com/utilities/utilities.htm

| > I get roughly UDMA2 throughput on both drives
What chipset / IDE controller ? Just move a big file between partitions
on each hdd, & time each transfer, & compare speed.

| > does this mean that the newer WD
| > drive capable of UDMA5 is only running at the lowest common denominator on
| > the channel?
More likely to mean bios / IDE controller / driver lacks UDMA5
capabilty. Doesn't bios report the std used for each hdd ?
 
| Sandra is a completely hopeless hard drive benchmark
Proofless slur. Sandra is great, author is helpful too.

| try HDTach.
u must be its author / salesman
 
Hi all,

I have a newer WD1200JB (UDMA5) master with a Quantum 30Gb (UDMA2) drive on
my primary channel. However when I run a benchmark (Sandra) on it, I get
roughly UDMA2 throughput on both drives - does this mean that the newer WD
drive capable of UDMA5 is only running at the lowest common denominator on
the channel?
Click to expand...

I have a WD1200BB and a lite on cd burner on the same ide channel. A hardware checker
program tells me the HD is set to UDMA66 yet Sandra tells me it is running at near twice
UDMA66 speed. Sandra says 13000 is typical where mine shows as around 25700.
Thanks,
William
Click to expand...


-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
Voicemail/fax number +14136227640
 
Proofless slur.
Click to expand...

Wrong. As always. The proof is completely trivial, try both
it and HDTach in the particular situation being discussed.
Sandra is great,
Click to expand...

Not as a low level hard drive benchmark it aint.

Which might just be why none of the review sites use it for that.
author is helpful too.
Click to expand...

Fat lot of good that is if the basic approach is
flawed for hard drive low level benchmarking.
u must be its author / salesman
Click to expand...

Nope, nothing to do with me at all. Not even the
same country. Other side of the world in fact.

You can wipe all that egg off your face now.
Hope you have a very large towel handy.
 
| The proof is completely trivial
incredible nonsense

My hdd`s' scores in Sandra are always very close to Sandra's
comparatives, for years.

| try both it and HDTach
u want every1 to buy your sftwre

| Other side of the world in fact.
a salesman can be anywhere

No user of an obsolete OE5.5 can be a credible critic of any sftwre ;
even OE6 is imperfect : cannot chk spammers' IP address, or accept a
URL with a "?" end ( e.g.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,183487,00.html? )
which IE6 accepts.
See, I can prove what I allege, u can't.
 
incredible nonsense
Click to expand...

Pathetic, really.
My hdd`s' scores in Sandra are always very
close to Sandra's comparatives, for years.
Click to expand...

Meaningless waffle.
u want every1 to buy your sftwre
Click to expand...

Taint 'my software', ****wit, and its FREE anyway.
a salesman can be anywhere
Click to expand...

And stupid conspiracy theory ****wits are everywhere clearly.
No user of an obsolete OE5.5 can be a credible critic of any sftwre ;
Click to expand...

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, ****wit.
even OE6 is imperfect : cannot chk spammers' IP
address, or accept a URL with a "?" end ( e.g.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,183487,00.html? )
which IE6 accepts.
Click to expand...

There are plenty better ways to check an IP than IE6, ****wit.
See, I can prove what I allege,
Click to expand...

You aint 'proved' a damned thing, fool.
u can't.
Click to expand...

I told you how to prove that question of whether HDTach is
a better low level hard drive benchmark than Sandar, ****wit.

And even you should be able to notice that the hard drive
reviews NEVER use Sandra and quite a few use HDTach, fool.
 
Back
Top