master vs slave hd - is one faster? (1 Viewer)

[Ted Lee]

hi all -

i just installed a 160g hd (wd w/8mb) as slave on my system so i can start doing video editing. my master is the same hd (80g version).

i was just wondering if there would be any speed difference between them? if so, would it be noticeable?

thx!

 

[Gabriel_Lam]

In general, higher capacity drives are a bit faster, especially when it's due to higher density. This being said, your drives are probably very similar in speed.

BTW, you have them hooked up correctly. If there's ever a speed difference, the slower one should be the master.

 

[Scott L]

ermm I think the bigger one is capable of more throughput just because it's holding more data per centimeter (similar to a DVD sporting better bandwidth at the same speed of a CD).

Speed difference won't be that noticeable, download HD Tach to benchmark em.

 

[Mike Fassler]

larger drives always benchmark faster.

www.storagereview.com is an awesome sote all about hard drive benchmarks.


when I bought my WD 250 gig SE 8mb it was the fastest PATA drive available.

 

[DarrenHo]

the bigger drive may just have more platters not a higher density. if the drives are from the same line, they should benchmark the same.

 

[Ted Lee]

cool...looks like i'm good to go. thanks guys!

 

[Ken Chan]

I've never heard that. What's the rationale?

 

[JohanD]

Here is the deal:

Master and Slave IDE Channels perform the same. However Master gets priority.

So when the drives are accessed individually, they will get full access to the bus. When both drives are accessed at the same time, the Master drive will get priority. So that means the Slave drive may waste time "waiting" for the master drive to get done with it's work, even if it's only a few milliseconds.