You are going to find out that, at least in my experience, the HPT366
controller is terrible. I have a Abit Be6-2 that I never could get the
Highpoint controller to work with IBM drives when I first built the system
and recently did get it working with newer drivers but the perfomance is
just terrible. The drive gives better performance from the regular ide
controller built into the board than from the Highpoint. As far as I can
see, Highpoint has abandoned development of drivers for this controller
since the HPT370 came out.
The best thing you can do is to find all the drivers and bios that have been
issued for your board, try different combinations and find the one that
gives you the best performance but I don't think it will ever be anything
that you will be satisfied with.
You ought to go to usenet to alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.soyo and see if
anyone has come up with a fix. I'm sure you are not the only one having the
problem.
Ben Moore
----- Original Message -----
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Clint Hamilton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 9:36 AM
Subject: PCWorks: Windows 2000 experts?
> Hi all. Hoping there is someone on the list that knows
> win2k. I am quite proficient with win98, but I am not
> familiar with win2k AT ALL, so please keep that in mind. :)
> A few days ago I installed it on a new hard drive and wanted
> to test some things to be sure they are operating at peak
> performance. The hard drive is about the fastest IDE drive
> made, an IBM 20gb 60GXP series...ATA 100, 7200rpm, 2mb
> buffer, and the highest areal density currently on the
> market. (PIII 800e, 256mb CAS2 PC133)
>
> I ran the diagnostics and benchmarking program "SiSoft
> Sandra" some of are familiar with it, but you don't need to
> be to see the problem. I ran a benchmark of the hard drive,
> and it was a LOT lower than the HD on win98. For reference
> purposes, all you need to really know or see is that the
> difference in the rating was big. On win98, the "drive
> index" was over 15,000. On win2k, it was only 8300! The
> access time is quite good, buffered read and write times as
> you can see are very high, at over 1200Mb/sec, but it
> suffers tremendously with sequential read and random read
> performance. (These should be several times higher which
> evidently is what is bringing the rating down). This was
> with "windows disk cache on" in the program's options, it
> was even lower with 'bypass windows disk cache' checked.
> http://orpheuscomputing.com/test.gif
============= PCWorks Mailing List =================
Don't see your post? Check our posting guidelines &
make sure you've followed proper posting procedures,
http://pcworkers.com/rules.htm
Contact list owner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unsubscribing and other changes: http://pcworkers.com
=====================================================
