Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!jwt!john From: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,connect.audit Subject: Re: Conner 200M IDE drive Message-ID: <1991Apr4.040424.13848@jwt.UUCP> Date: 4 Apr 91 04:04:24 GMT References: <1991Mar31.162532.9509@ibmpcug.co.uk> <1991Apr3.035310.11481@jwt.UUCP> Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL Lines: 19 In article phr@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Rubin) writes: >Maybe your cpu isn't fast enough. I tried it on a non-cached 386/20 and a cached 386/33 with the same results. >I get 645k/sec from my CP3204 (Norton sysinfo benchmark). What exactly does the Norton benchmark do? Did you have any software cacheing enabled when you ran it? I do find it interesting that the result obtained by Norton is nearly 50% slower than what Coretest quotes, though. >A friend of mine has measured 1.1MB/sec from a similar (non-Conner) >200MB drive on a 486-33 system. What benchmark was used to measure this transfer rate? -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)