I am not sure about what exactly you are looking for, but with a 100Mb/s transfer, you would get 12.5MB/s (8 bits in a byte, so 100/8) in theory. This would also be port-to-port, whereas in a hub the 100Mb/s speed would be split across all ports where demand is needed (and this is made worse since hubs broadcast all packets to all ports, which is why you see so many collisions/packet loss and poor performance).
 
So, was that what you were asking? Oh, btw, this is all in theory and in practice you will probably see about 50%-80% of this capacity in real life. There have been a few times that I have seen only 45Mb/s on a decent switch during a fairly quiet time on a network.

Grr... double post
 
I responded to your other post here...

Thanks to you both. I said 1.2 MB/s and 12 MB/s respectively for a 10/100 switch, which was an approximate rate on a small unmanaged switch. We were just planning yet another sales conference where we pack up the rolling servers, back up all data across several independent small 100 Mbit lans, image the laptops, and restore the data. We had to estimate how much data each user had and then calculate an average time that it will take to perform the above tasks. We'll probably have 6-8 servers, each having a 200GB raid array and maybe a single 16 port switch for each server (using only 10 connections to the laptops) to maximize throughput and I/O.
 
Thanks again for the help!!

I didn't realize he double posted either. Oh well...