NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Sager & Clevo Notebook Forums › Sager & Clevo Notebook Reviews › 8790 owners/users, please run this Sandra benchmark
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

8790 owners/users, please run this Sandra benchmark

post #1 of 19
4/1/04 at 11:14am
Thread Starter 
Please run the file system benchmark with Sandra2004. I noticed after running it that my 7200 RPM hitachi drive is NO WHERE near the performance it was on my old ZX5000 HP laptop. I wonder if this is due to using the non-raid ultra controller. I have heard about this problem with desktop machines where performance is degraded by up to 20% using it on a promise controller compared to the regular IDE chipset.

My benchmarks (best of 3) with various all drivers provided by Sager and stock XP one came out to be 29106 on a 7200 8mb cache Hitachi drive.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 19
4/1/04 at 4:38pm
Thread Starter 
Anybody know if we can update the controllers to Ultra 133 instead of Ultra 100? The Hitachi 7200 drive supports Ultra DMA 6 but is running in 5 due to the controller. I bet this is why it's lacking in performance vs my old HP ZX.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 19
4/1/04 at 9:34pm
I just ran a couple file system benchmarks with Sandra2004 and got 31MB/s both times. I got 2 of the 7200 harddrives but not running raid.
Only received this machine yesterday to replace a Dell I8100. So far it is real nice and meeting my expectations. Wish I didn't have to work on my taxes so I could play.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 19
4/1/04 at 9:48pm
Thread Starter 
using the stock XP driver? Interesting, my old ZX got like 41mb/s. I wonder what the raid people are getting.

I disconnected the 4200 Toshiba drive and it made no difference.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 19
4/1/04 at 10:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rancid
using the stock XP driver? Interesting, my old ZX got like 41mb/s. I wonder what the raid people are getting.

I disconnected the 4200 Toshiba drive and it made no difference.
I get 46MB/s with duel 80GB 5,400 RPM drives (RAID-0).
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 19
4/1/04 at 10:44pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks G, that is what I wanted to see. There you go people, if you want to see the h/d difference between RAID and Non-RAID it's very easy to see which one has more throughput. Kinda sux Clevo went with a ATA100 controller on this thing instead of a 133
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 19
4/1/04 at 11:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rancid
Thanks G, that is what I wanted to see. There you go people, if you want to see the h/d difference between RAID and Non-RAID it's very easy to see which one has more throughput. Kinda sux Clevo went with a ATA100 controller on this thing instead of a 133
Rancid - do you own an 8790?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 19
4/1/04 at 11:28pm
Thread Starter 
Yes, got it on Monday.

3.2 P4, non-raid, 7200 hitachi drive and 4200 toshiba, 2x256 memory from Sager.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 19
4/2/04 at 8:02am
Intel uses ATA100, no ATA133.

andres
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 19
4/2/04 at 9:48am
Thread Starter 
Yeah I discovered that last night after doing a bit of research. Guess it's a swap between better memory speeds or better h/d speeds (SiS, ATI chipset vs. Intel)
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 19
4/2/04 at 10:36pm
I have dual 60 gigs @ 7200 rpm and my benchmark is 51 mbs. This is with Raid 0 installed.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 19
4/2/04 at 11:36pm
Thread Starter 
Wow can't believe the throughput with RAID vs non-raid. Very, very nice. Looks like I'll be nabbing another drive soon
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 19
4/2/04 at 11:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rancid
Wow can't believe the throughput with RAID vs non-raid. Very, very nice. Looks like I'll be nabbing another drive soon
Duuuuhhhh,


Sorry, just could not help myself here...... I'm loosing it ....
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 19
4/3/04 at 2:05am
Thread Starter 
G:

Well I mean I always knew it was faster but not that much faster! I ran it on my desktop and it wasn't that much faster as it is on the sager. I think it's b/c of the ATA 100 thing.

How is everything going with your laptop Omaha? Get everything worked out?
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 19
4/3/04 at 2:52pm
No - Am pondering return it for a full refund under the 30 Day Return policy and then starting over again with a slightly different configuration.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 19
4/3/04 at 10:19pm
I have to say that even though the numbers may seem impressive - so far the actual speed of the system hasn't really blown my socks off (for the money I paid). I have been working with bugs on my wireless network due to firewall - ugh. Since I heard that raid 0 will work real good with video editing - I hope to give that a try real soon.
I was hoping for much faster install speeds, yet when I install something off cdrom it doesn't really seem all that great. Maybe the cdrom is bottlenecking things? Can somebody confirm this?
I'm not disapointed with this machine due to the somewhat slower-than-expected speeds, just has me wondering whether or not raid is worth it for what I will be doing with the machine.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 19
4/4/04 at 12:32am
Yep, CD-ROM is much slower than the HDDs.

Try doing some video editing/rendering on another machine and then the 8790. You will be pleased (or that is my experience).
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 19
4/4/04 at 12:31pm
Thread Starter 
I am so going to be buying another h/d for this thing and setup RAID. I am debating if I want to send it back and wait on the new LCD's as I have a feeling they are right around the corner. HP is now offering them in the ZD7000.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 19
4/4/04 at 2:25pm
I am using 2x60GIG 72K rpm on RAID 0 on the 8790 and ran the HD benchmark 3 times...average of 56MB/sec. I also have tweaked the win XP for large filesystem cache writes. For comparison, 2x120GIG SATA 150 at 10K drives on RAID0 average 92 MB/sec.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sager & Clevo Notebook Reviews
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Sager & Clevo Notebook Forums › Sager & Clevo Notebook Reviews › 8790 owners/users, please run this Sandra benchmark