Maxtor's new 8MB cache HDD

WyreTheWolf · Dec 14, 2002, 02:46 PM

Want to ask questions about the review?
Just have something to say?

You are in the right place!

Kelsenellenelvian · Dec 14, 2002, 02:47 PM

Ohhhh now I like that, and at a damn good price too.

Hog54 · Dec 14, 2002, 02:59 PM

My 60 gig ibm gets 27,917kbps in sandra with 2 mb cache and on regular ide

WyreTheWolf · Dec 14, 2002, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hog54
My 60 gig ibm gets 27,917kbps in sandra with 2 mb cache and on regular ide

NTFS, WinXP, and with Acoustic Management?

Acoustic Managment is the biggest part of this. It helps keep the drive nearly silent. 24db while being used., and that is under a whisper.

And to tell you the truth. ATA133 doesn't make a whole lot of sence. The IDE will never get saturated. ATA100 never gets used to its full extent.

Also try to keep in mind that Sandra is not a true benchmark.

It is synthetic.

Run HDTach, and get your readings there.

Hog54 · Dec 14, 2002, 03:31 PM

I tried hd tach,it wont run in xp?And as far as acoustic management gos i leave it off cause with my ibms the only way i can tell their even running is by looking at the led.

WyreTheWolf · Dec 14, 2002, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hog54
I tried hd tach,it wont run in xp?

It will run just fine in XP... That is what this HDD was tested in.

BWX · Dec 14, 2002, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hog54
My 60 gig ibm gets 27,917kbps in sandra with 2 mb cache and on regular ide

My ATA/100 40 gig WD400BB 2mb gets over 31,000 kbs on sandra if that tells you anything- with a <8ms access time.

Hog54 · Dec 14, 2002, 04:34 PM

Yeah it only works in xp if you buy it.Im not paying 50 bucks to see how fast my hardrive is.

Happynic1 · Dec 14, 2002, 05:17 PM

24db that's pretty quite, I have 2 hds in my system a WD120g JB and a Seagate Barracuda IV 80gig. Both of these are super quite Harddrives.,, but I guess this new Maxtor just beats it by a couple of db.

nice pic and review.

digitalwanderer · Dec 14, 2002, 05:48 PM

Any review that has puppy paws is a choice review in my book! Nice job most fuzzy one, now I'm tempted to pick up a new HD for me pink PC project. (Not that my 3 year old would get the new one...

)

WyreTheWolf · Dec 14, 2002, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hog54
Yeah it only works in xp if you buy it.Im not paying 50 bucks to see how fast my hardrive is.

Only the "Enable Write Test" will not work if you don't buy it. But the benchmark works just fine.

Also another thing that I have found. It is my southbridge that is the problem. The VIA southbridge on my motherboard is the 8233A... which has massive problems with running ATA133 at its given speed of 127MB/s

Looks like the fastest I will be getting out of this drive is 68MB/s

Oh well, just another reason to upgrade to the KT4! hehehe

reno · Dec 15, 2002, 01:02 AM

On my system (specs in my signature...well, in the link in my signature) HDTach reports 46,332kbps with FAT32, and Sandra reports 47,122kbps with FAT32, drive also is filled with about 27gb of games and stuffs. That's with the 80gb WD800JB.

This is all under Windows XP.

Just for comparison purposes. It is not audible though, at all, in my system, but my 40gb 2mb cache WD400BB does make noise. It only scores 27,454kbps in HDTach and 27,601kbps in Sandra 2002. Also about 20 or so gb of it filled, using FAT32.

Dec 15, 2002, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by reno
On my system (specs in my signature...well, in the link in my signature) HDTach reports 46,332kbps with FAT32, and Sandra reports 47,122kbps with FAT32, drive also is filled with about 27gb of games and stuffs. That's with the 80gb WD800JB.

This is all under Windows XP.

Just for comparison purposes. It is not audible though, at all, in my system, but my 40gb 2mb cache WD400BB does make noise. It only scores 27,454kbps in HDTach and 27,601kbps in Sandra 2002. Also about 20 or so gb of it filled, using FAT32.

So what your saying is that your scoring higher than a scsi ultra 160 then???

Ok look at this smart ass:

These are Sandra reference scores.

Scsi U160 10k rpm 8mb cache (ntfs) 34080 kb/s score

Or ATA 100 raid 0 (8mb cache) ntfs )score 42520 kb/s

PLus your running the test on a loaded drive.

Is this like your WOW score of 8540 on your vidcard that BTW i have and have a score of 10060 ??

trust me man your far away from a 4200 with that score.
unless you mean the scores that nOObs post without tweaking.

In other words ...GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT before you post !!

WyreTheWolf · Dec 15, 2002, 01:49 AM

C0NAN · Dec 15, 2002, 03:33 AM

Well I have a Diamond Max Plus 9 80 gig with 2mb cache. I benched it after a clean install of Windows XP before installing all of my other programs (my motherboard limits me to ATA 100):

Dec 15, 2002, 03:46 AM

Ok Reno look at this

This is from a review of renos board

Look at his specs and look closely at his southbridge.

Chipset
(North) VIA P4X266:
Support Pentium 4 System bus
Support DDR 200 / 266 SDRAM interface
(South) VIA VT8233
Built in high bandwidth 266MB/S
8-bit V-link Host controller

Form Factor
ATX

Processor
Intel Pentium 4 in the 478 pin package

Expansion Slot
Support external AGP V2.0 compliant VGA device
Support 1X, 2X, 4X AGP data transfer
5 x PCI slots

Onboard Audio
VIA AC'97 2.1 compliant CODEC

Memory
3 184pin DDR DIMM Slot

On board IDE Controller
2 x UltraDMA/100 Bus Master IDE from ICH2
2 x UltraDMA/100 promise 265R to support RAID 0 (AV40R model only)
80-pin Cable Backward Compatible Legacy ATAPI Devices

Back Panel
2 Serial Ports
1 Parallel Port (SPP, EPP, ECP)
1 PS/2 Keyboard Port
1 PS/2 Mouse Port
2 USB Ports
1x Game / MIDI Port
1x Line in, 1x Line out, 1x Mic

Connectors
1 x ATX power connector
1 x 4 pin 12V ATX power connector
1 x 6 pin 5V / 3.3V ATX power connector
4 x Fan Power connectors (one for system chipset fan)
4 x UltraDMA/100 Bus Master IDE (AV40R model only)
1 x Floppy

No further comments needed...

ryda · Dec 15, 2002, 07:26 AM

Interesting results...I'll mention the review on theDDRZone.com

Vampyromaniac · Dec 15, 2002, 10:56 AM

Lol, I like your Paw of Approval, WTWolf

Hmm, fast drive, but why is the CPU util so high?

Here's my 2 drives (in Win98) HDTach results:

Code:

Primary Master: IBM 120GXP 80GB
RandomAccessTime (ms) . . 12.7
Processor Utilization . . 3.5%
ReadBurstSpeed (KB/s) . . 92900
Avg Read Speed (KB/s) . . 38079

Primary Slave: WD800BB (2MB cache) 
RandomAccessTime (ms) . . 13.7
Processor Utilization . . 7.1%
ReadBurstSpeed (KB/s) . . 91344
Avg Read Speed (KB/s) . . 40563

no Acoustic Management, btw . . . the WD drive is silent, and IBM barely any noise

Dec 15, 2002, 11:31 AM

HI Vamp...

Ok the reason for his high Cpu usage and lower speeds is simple.

He has a slower chipset. Via southbridge 8233

This alone slows his transfer down .

Some others may think that this drive isnt that fast but ..
Try to imagine what its gonna do on the newer 8235 (btw much faster).

Also note that he did this test on the drive he was on and not some Secondary/slave drive.

Hopefully Wwolf will upgrade soon and give us a better picture.

Btw he did turn off the Acoustic Management and still couldnt hear
anything ......

radTube · Dec 15, 2002, 11:44 AM

I found this review on the 2mb buffer version of the Diamondmax Plus 9. Actually it's a comparison between the Maxtor and a Seagate ATA V. However, I'd be interested to know if an 80Gb Maxtor would show different results than the 60Gb model they tested, as the 80 gigger has higher platter density.

Anyway.. I ordered one of those 80 gig Maxtors and hopefully will be getting it sometime next week. I plan on running some tests on it as soon as I get it, just out of curiosity. And yeah, it's gonna be slave and FAT32, as my 40Gb Diamondmax Plus 60 is doing just fine as the master. If I get any interesting results, I might just post them here. Don't know if I'm up to a full review, 'cause I'll be working through the holidays. I might have time to do it next year

(yeah I know I've got the disk in my signature even though it's not yet part of my rig. How stupid is that??

)

Vampyromaniac · Dec 15, 2002, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GREEKRAGE
He has a slower chipset.

Lol, you know what chipset I have? Omg, are you one of those who are "watching me"?
I'm scared now . .

Quote:

Originally posted by GREEKRAGE
Also note that he did this test on the drive he was on and not some Secondary/slave drive.

Yeah I used a Primary Master too (the IBM) . . . .

Dec 15, 2002, 04:48 PM

No buddy im not a spy...at least not yet...

But i assumed you had a newer chipset from the nice speeds you
show.

Though out of curiosity i would like to see what specs you do have......mostly to help the review.

Vampyromaniac · Dec 16, 2002, 04:20 AM

Oh. I have ECS K7S5A mobo (SiS 735 chipset). CPU is AthlonXP 1800. um, RAM is 256MB pc2100 if it matters.

Hehe, now I don't have to watch my back

at least not watch for you . . .

EDIT: forgot to say nothing is overclocked, if that matters too

Desert_Siege · Dec 16, 2002, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by reno
On my system (specs in my signature...well, in the link in my signature) HDTach reports 46,332kbps with FAT32, and Sandra reports 47,122kbps with FAT32, drive also is filled with about 27gb of games and stuffs. That's with the 80gb WD800JB.

Dude, I wouild really have to see that. I have a Raid 0 Array running ATA133 that doesn't score that high. I get around 44,300 to 44,500. Now granted, this is also the array that Win XP is on, but I just have a hard time believing a Non Raid IDE drive scores that high, If I am wrong, I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Dec 16, 2002, 08:01 AM

Yeah and another weird thing is that i see ppl scoring better while in a Fat32 format while WWolf did his in NTFS.

Do you think this is a bug ??

I suggest you guys with these weird scores try both mentioned benchmarks so we can find some truth here.

Vampyromaniac · Dec 16, 2002, 08:49 AM

Well, I don't really trust Sandra as a HD benchmark. But I can post my results if you were counting me as one of "you guys with these weird scores"

How about PCMark2002? What do you guys think of the HD benchmark in that?

And, do you mean FAT32 is faster than NTFS? Cool, yay Win98!!

Happynic1 · Dec 16, 2002, 01:04 PM

Sandra does mess up sometimes so the person with the strange high score could just that, showing incorrect testing results., I had some strange Sandra result before too,,

my cpu xp1800+ (1.6g) score so high in points that I'm guessing around a P4 15gig mhz , man, if only it was really that fast.

this seem to happen when I use CPUZ and then check with Sandra .

My HD benchmarks seem low too at aroudn 27000ish mostly but jumps to 30000ish and 23000ish sometimes..

I guess it could be the motherboard K7s5a

Dec 16, 2002, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
Well, I don't really trust Sandra as a HD benchmark. But I can post my results if you were counting me as one of "you guys with these weird scores"

How about PCMark2002? What do you guys think of the HD benchmark in that?

And, do you mean FAT32 is faster than NTFS? Cool, yay Win98!!

Lol thats the point bro...IT ISNT !!...Especially on a NT system..

WyreTheWolf · Dec 16, 2002, 05:17 PM

I did a total of 5 benchmarks, with both of these benchmark programs, I posted the one that was closest to the average. I scored as high as 28124, but that is the high end, not the average. Good luck to you guys out there that are benchmarking your drives. Remember... Always strive for your best! But, don't be a lamer

WyreTheWolf · Dec 16, 2002, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Any review that has puppy paws is a choice review in my book! Nice job most fuzzy one, now I'm tempted to pick up a new HD for me pink PC project. (Not that my 3 year old would get the new one... )

TY very much for the kudos. I appreciate it.

Dec 14, 2002, 02:46 PM	#1
WyreTheWolf Wolfish Bastard Join Date: May 2002 Location: Cave; Ozark Mountains Posts: 2,110 Rep Power: 0	Maxtor's new 8MB cache HDD Want to ask questions about the review? Just have something to say? You are in the right place!

Dec 14, 2002, 02:47 PM	#2
Kelsenellenelvian Master of my own Destiny Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: EverDawn Kingdom,TruEarth Posts: 1,394 Rep Power: 0	Ohhhh now I like that, and at a damn good price too. __________________ [color=#0000ff] Download Windows Post-Install Wizard v4.3.8 and WPI Lite v1.2 Here [/color][color=red][color=blue][/color][/color]

Dec 14, 2002, 02:59 PM	#3
Hog54 HardwareHeaven Lover Join Date: May 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 164 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	My 60 gig ibm gets 27,917kbps in sandra with 2 mb cache and on regular ide __________________ AMD PHENOM II 965 BE ASUS M3N72-D 4 GIGs GSKILL PC-8500 EVGA GTX460 SC 1GB WINDOWS 7 X64 Ultimate

Dec 14, 2002, 03:31 PM	#5
Hog54 HardwareHeaven Lover Join Date: May 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 164 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	I tried hd tach,it wont run in xp?And as far as acoustic management gos i leave it off cause with my ibms the only way i can tell their even running is by looking at the led. __________________ AMD PHENOM II 965 BE ASUS M3N72-D 4 GIGs GSKILL PC-8500 EVGA GTX460 SC 1GB WINDOWS 7 X64 Ultimate

Dec 14, 2002, 04:34 PM	#8
Hog54 HardwareHeaven Lover Join Date: May 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 164 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Yeah it only works in xp if you buy it.Im not paying 50 bucks to see how fast my hardrive is. __________________ AMD PHENOM II 965 BE ASUS M3N72-D 4 GIGs GSKILL PC-8500 EVGA GTX460 SC 1GB WINDOWS 7 X64 Ultimate

Dec 14, 2002, 05:17 PM	#9
Happynic1 DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 0	24db that's pretty quite, I have 2 hds in my system a WD120g JB and a Seagate Barracuda IV 80gig. Both of these are super quite Harddrives.,, but I guess this new Maxtor just beats it by a couple of db. nice pic and review.

Dec 14, 2002, 05:48 PM	#10
digitalwanderer Colour Commentator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Highland, IN USA Posts: 5,619 Rep Power: 0	Puppy paws! Any review that has puppy paws is a choice review in my book! Nice job most fuzzy one, now I'm tempted to pick up a new HD for me pink PC project. (Not that my 3 year old would get the new one... ) __________________ WTF is up with the sigs?

Dec 15, 2002, 01:02 AM	#12
reno Painlord of Ichor Join Date: May 2002 Location: bloinkin! Posts: 1,610 Rep Power: 0	;ijh On my system (specs in my signature...well, in the link in my signature) HDTach reports 46,332kbps with FAT32, and Sandra reports 47,122kbps with FAT32, drive also is filled with about 27gb of games and stuffs. That's with the 80gb WD800JB. This is all under Windows XP. Just for comparison purposes. It is not audible though, at all, in my system, but my 40gb 2mb cache WD400BB does make noise. It only scores 27,454kbps in HDTach and 27,601kbps in Sandra 2002. Also about 20 or so gb of it filled, using FAT32.

Dec 15, 2002, 01:49 AM	Thread Starter #14
WyreTheWolf Wolfish Bastard Join Date: May 2002 Location: Cave; Ozark Mountains Posts: 2,110 Rep Power: 0	I want to see a pic of your benchmark.

Dec 15, 2002, 03:33 AM	#15
C0NAN DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 52 Rep Power: 0	Well I have a Diamond Max Plus 9 80 gig with 2mb cache. I benched it after a clean install of Windows XP before installing all of my other programs (my motherboard limits me to ATA 100): __________________ Thermaltake Xaser III V1000D Case 7 Cooler Master LED Fans P4 3.0C HT 800mhz @ 3.3 Ghz Asus P4P800 Deluxe 1 Gig Geil Ultra Platinum DDR 500 Memory Timing = 2.5-4-4-7-8 @ 2.65 volts Sapphire 9800 Pro 128mb Maxtor Diamond Max Plus 9 160 Gig Maxtor Diamond Max Plus 9 80 Gig Enermax EG465P-VE Power Supply

Dec 15, 2002, 03:46 AM	#16
GREEKRAGE Guest Posts: n/a	Ok Reno look at this This is from a review of renos board Look at his specs and look closely at his southbridge. Chipset (North) VIA P4X266: Support Pentium 4 System bus Support DDR 200 / 266 SDRAM interface (South) VIA VT8233 Built in high bandwidth 266MB/S 8-bit V-link Host controller Form Factor ATX Processor Intel Pentium 4 in the 478 pin package Expansion Slot Support external AGP V2.0 compliant VGA device Support 1X, 2X, 4X AGP data transfer 5 x PCI slots Onboard Audio VIA AC'97 2.1 compliant CODEC Memory 3 184pin DDR DIMM Slot On board IDE Controller 2 x UltraDMA/100 Bus Master IDE from ICH2 2 x UltraDMA/100 promise 265R to support RAID 0 (AV40R model only) 80-pin Cable Backward Compatible Legacy ATAPI Devices Back Panel 2 Serial Ports 1 Parallel Port (SPP, EPP, ECP) 1 PS/2 Keyboard Port 1 PS/2 Mouse Port 2 USB Ports 1x Game / MIDI Port 1x Line in, 1x Line out, 1x Mic Connectors 1 x ATX power connector 1 x 4 pin 12V ATX power connector 1 x 6 pin 5V / 3.3V ATX power connector 4 x Fan Power connectors (one for system chipset fan) 4 x UltraDMA/100 Bus Master IDE (AV40R model only) 1 x Floppy No further comments needed...

Dec 15, 2002, 07:26 AM	#17
ryda theDDRZone News Whore Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2 Rep Power: 0	Interesting results...I'll mention the review on theDDRZone.com __________________ [color=red]ryda aka tha_clown[/color] [color=green]News Whore and Graphics Moderator TheDDRZone[/color] Visit TheDDRZone and while you're at it, check out TheDDRZone Forums! Graphics Card FAQ!

Dec 15, 2002, 10:56 AM	#18
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	Lol, I like your Paw of Approval, WTWolf Hmm, fast drive, but why is the CPU util so high? Here's my 2 drives (in Win98) HDTach results: Code: Primary Master: IBM 120GXP 80GB RandomAccessTime (ms) . . 12.7 Processor Utilization . . 3.5% ReadBurstSpeed (KB/s) . . 92900 Avg Read Speed (KB/s) . . 38079 Primary Slave: WD800BB (2MB cache) RandomAccessTime (ms) . . 13.7 Processor Utilization . . 7.1% ReadBurstSpeed (KB/s) . . 91344 Avg Read Speed (KB/s) . . 40563 no Acoustic Management, btw . . . the WD drive is silent, and IBM barely any noise __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Dec 15, 2002, 11:31 AM	#19
GREEKRAGE Guest Posts: n/a	HI Vamp... Ok the reason for his high Cpu usage and lower speeds is simple. He has a slower chipset. Via southbridge 8233 This alone slows his transfer down . Some others may think that this drive isnt that fast but .. Try to imagine what its gonna do on the newer 8235 (btw much faster). Also note that he did this test on the drive he was on and not some Secondary/slave drive. Hopefully Wwolf will upgrade soon and give us a better picture. Btw he did turn off the Acoustic Management and still couldnt hear anything ......

Dec 15, 2002, 11:44 AM	#20
radTube just keepin' it cool Join Date: May 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 228 Rep Power: 0	I found this review on the 2mb buffer version of the Diamondmax Plus 9. Actually it's a comparison between the Maxtor and a Seagate ATA V. However, I'd be interested to know if an 80Gb Maxtor would show different results than the 60Gb model they tested, as the 80 gigger has higher platter density. Anyway.. I ordered one of those 80 gig Maxtors and hopefully will be getting it sometime next week. I plan on running some tests on it as soon as I get it, just out of curiosity. And yeah, it's gonna be slave and FAT32, as my 40Gb Diamondmax Plus 60 is doing just fine as the master. If I get any interesting results, I might just post them here. Don't know if I'm up to a full review, 'cause I'll be working through the holidays. I might have time to do it next year (yeah I know I've got the disk in my signature even though it's not yet part of my rig. How stupid is that?? ) __________________ [color=orange] [/color]

Dec 15, 2002, 04:48 PM	#22
GREEKRAGE Guest Posts: n/a	No buddy im not a spy...at least not yet... But i assumed you had a newer chipset from the nice speeds you show. Though out of curiosity i would like to see what specs you do have......mostly to help the review.

Dec 16, 2002, 04:20 AM	#23
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	Oh. I have ECS K7S5A mobo (SiS 735 chipset). CPU is AthlonXP 1800. um, RAM is 256MB pc2100 if it matters. Hehe, now I don't have to watch my back at least not watch for you . . . EDIT: forgot to say nothing is overclocked, if that matters too __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250 Last edited by Vampyromaniac; Dec 16, 2002 at 04:27 AM.

Dec 16, 2002, 08:01 AM	#25
GREEKRAGE Guest Posts: n/a	Yeah and another weird thing is that i see ppl scoring better while in a Fat32 format while WWolf did his in NTFS. Do you think this is a bug ?? I suggest you guys with these weird scores try both mentioned benchmarks so we can find some truth here.

Dec 16, 2002, 08:49 AM	#26
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	Well, I don't really trust Sandra as a HD benchmark. But I can post my results if you were counting me as one of "you guys with these weird scores" How about PCMark2002? What do you guys think of the HD benchmark in that? And, do you mean FAT32 is faster than NTFS? Cool, yay Win98!!

Dec 16, 2002, 01:04 PM	#27
Happynic1 DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 0	Sandra does mess up sometimes so the person with the strange high score could just that, showing incorrect testing results., I had some strange Sandra result before too,, my cpu xp1800+ (1.6g) score so high in points that I'm guessing around a P4 15gig mhz , man, if only it was really that fast. this seem to happen when I use CPUZ and then check with Sandra . My HD benchmarks seem low too at aroudn 27000ish mostly but jumps to 30000ish and 23000ish sometimes.. I guess it could be the motherboard K7s5a

Dec 16, 2002, 05:17 PM	Thread Starter #29
WyreTheWolf Wolfish Bastard Join Date: May 2002 Location: Cave; Ozark Mountains Posts: 2,110 Rep Power: 0	I did a total of 5 benchmarks, with both of these benchmark programs, I posted the one that was closest to the average. I scored as high as 28124, but that is the high end, not the average. Good luck to you guys out there that are benchmarking your drives. Remember... Always strive for your best! But, don't be a lamer