If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Whenever I run SiSoft Sandra, it always seems to tell me my rig is slower than the benchmark standard.
Especially on HDD tests.
My second rig runs 4x 9.1gb Seagate Cheetah 10krpm SCSI-160 HDDs in RAID-0. Sandra 2002 scores it 25k, which is *just* faster than their listing for a single stock SCSI-320 HDD.
All its really worth to me is so I can judge if tweaks on an individual machine have made any difference. Useless for cross-PC comparisons.
Athlon XP-64/3200, 1gb PC3200, 512mb Radeon X1950Pro AGP, Dell 2005fwp, Logitech G5, IBM model M.
I've more or less given up on using Sandra as a HD benchmark tool.
I'm running a RAID 0+1 array on a Promise TX2 controller.
When this controller first made an appearance various sites showed that this controller running RAID 0+1 was almost (within a couple %) as fast as a standard RAID 0 array.
However Sandra benches my array at about half the marks of a single ATA100 7200rpm HD - something is just not right there.
The memory & CPU benchmarks check out OK though.
It cost one penny to cross, or one hundred gold pieces if you had a billygoat.
Trolls might not be quick thinkers but they don't forget in a hurry, either
my P4 1.8A's cache benchmark test is worse than a P41.8 willimate's cache in the <256K cache range, even when i tweaked the 512K look in WinXP through the registry
If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.
Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."
Comment