Sisoft Sandra Pro v1.11.8.53 and Hard Drive Tach v2.61 . Both programs are run in Registered mode.

The test drive is a Western Digital ATA100 7200RMP (WDC WD200BB-00AUA)on Port1 as Master with a 56x Aopen CD-Reader as slave.

Microsoft Win2K SP2 Native Drivers:
SiSoft = 22,309k HD-Tach = 24,302

Intel ATA100 v6.20 Drivers:
SiSoft = 22,043 HD-Tach = 24,298

Intel Application Accelerator 2.0.0.2069 Beta
SiSoft = 20,067 HD-Tach = 24,273

In Summary :
These results would indicate HD-Tach measurement are stable and accurate across all driver platforms. While SiSoft Sandra tests show the IAA v2.0 beta to be an inferior driver comparitively.

HD-Tach seemed to have consistant information, while SiSoft Sandra had a significant drop with the Intel v2.0 Beta Driver.
The SiSoft results should not have had such change. This change in SiSoft could mean that the benchmarking application has a flaw. I have the current reseased version including the most current update file.

Test results show simular performance.( Barring the low numbers for the SiSoft beta test).
It appears these driver perform very closely and there is no real advantage in choosing one driver over another.

There may be other important reasons to choose one driver over another such as "Drive recognition in Device Manager", or the "ability for the system to see a CD-RW correctly".

If speed is the only consideration, all drivers in this test performed with simular performance. There is no real advantage of one driver over another.

Gracias.... some real world useable info!

have you tried to benchmark Windows XP with or without these drivers?

1)Microsoft WinXP
2)ATA100 v6.20
3)Intel Application Accelerator v2.0.0.2069 Beta
Sisoft Sandra Pro v1.11.8.53 and Hard Drive Tach v2.61 . Both programs are run in Registered mode.

The test drive is a IBM GXP 20gig ATA100 7200RMP on Port1 as Master with a 56x Aopen CD-Reader as slave.

Microsoft WinXP Native Drivers:
SiSoft = 3,158k HD-Tach = 2,795k

Intel ATA100 v6.20 Drivers:
SiSoft = 31,312k HD-Tach = 14,166

Intel Application Accelerator 2.0.0.2069 Beta
SiSoft = 30,528k HD-Tach = 16,824

In Summary :
The WinXP drivers Really Suck.
The Hard Drive Tach program seems to be the most reliable testing application. Sisoft Sandra seems to be a bit quirky in its results; results being severely affected by driver version.

If you compare the Win2K results (Above) with these WinXP results, it appears that the Base Windows drivers are not the best choice. Intel released drivers appear to be the best choice wheather thay are the Application Accelerator or the ATA100 drivers, it doesn't matter. Since the Beta drivers cause SiSoft Sandra to give weird results, I would use Hard Drive Tach as the Quality Testing Application.

The SiSoft Sandra results and the HD Tach results are transposed. I will restate the results again in correct fasion.

Remember we are testing the Intel Port 1 not the HPT ports 3 or 4.
Test drive is an IBM 60GXP 20gig ATA100 7200RPM drive.

Microsoft WinXP Native Drivers:
SiSoft = 2,795k HD-Tach = 3,158k

Intel ATA100 v6.20 Drivers:
SiSoft = 14,166k HD-Tach = 31,312k

Intel Application Accelerator 2.0.0.2069 Beta
SiSoft = 16,824k HD-Tach = 30,528k

I feel that the HD-Tach program is a more reliable testing application for Benchmarking your systems Drive performance. SiSoft seems to be a bit wild as far as the range of difference in results, as compared to HD-Tach.

Hard Drive Tach can be downloaded and purchased here ... http://www.tcdlabs.com/hdtach.htm

Sorry for the confusion, I was in a hurry to post the results and get to work this morning.

ABIT waaaaaaaaaaaast's up wid dat?