SATA question

[Ivan Gyurdiev]

>> It's nice to know my SATA II drive is so much superior :)
>
> If the rpm, number of platters, and data encoding stay the same, so 
> will the performance, broadly speaking, 8MB or 16MB of cache will only 
> have an effect if you're doing reading that fits a certain pattern, 
> and as we've seen the physical disk couldn't even half fill an ATA133 
> interface (let alone SATA, or SATA II) only cache reads can do that.
Why are my cache reads so much slower than yours (by a factor of 2)?
A friend of mine has SATA I, with 1800 MB/s cached reads, which is also 
much better.