Info on CrystalDisk Mark can be found here: [URL] the numbers are sequential 512k/ qd1 for the values that I listed in my initial message.   What got me started on this was the new server felt extremely sluggish during the install and config.  So I tried a couple of disk benchmarks and they all showed extremely poor performance.  I listed CrystalDiskMark numbers because it is widely known and used in benchmarking.   
Brand New T320 ordered with 4 500GB SATA drives (Dell/WD) set up as RAID-10.  Server 2012 Std.  32 GB RAM.   I had good performance from a T110-II and similar 4 drive RAID-10 using the S100 controller, but the difference is night and day between the S100 and the S110. I reinstalled several times in different configurations just to make sure it was the S110 that was the issue.  Using the latest version of CrystalDiskMark (3.02f) here are the approximate numbers I'm getting on sequential reads/writes.   T110-II w/S100 and 4x500GB RAID 10 -   220 / 215 MB/sec. T320 w/S110 and 4x500GB RAID 10 -      50 / 45 MB/sec with cache configured no read ahead and write through. T320 w/S110 and 4x500GB RAID10 -       60 / 52 MB/sec with cache configured read ahead and write back. T320 w/S110 and 2x500GB RAID 1 -        50/45 MB/sec T320 with S110 deactivated and just running a single 500GB drive in SATA AHCI mode.    135/133 MB/Sec.  This is about what I would expect from a single WD/Dell  7200 RPM drive.  No problem with standard SATA AHCI.   This is not a hardware vs software RAID issue.  Like I mentioned, I get great numbers on a T110-II with S100 in RAID 10. Dell - I can't believe you ship something this bad.  My preference is to figure out why it's so bad and fix the issue, but if I don't get answers soon the server will be going back to Dell.  The server as it sits now is unusable.  I've got 10 year old servers sitting in my salvage pile that perform better than this. [ADMIN NOTE: Profanity removed per TOU] Dell ???  
PE T320 and S110 RAID 10 - Server 2012 - Abysmal Disk Subsystem Performance