Why don't SQL Server queries use more than 7MB/sec of disk I/O
From the comments chain, it looks like you're interpreting ASYNC_NETWORK_IO waits to mean that the problem is related to the network. It (typically) isn't. 

As @MartinSmith hinted at (twice) the most likely explanation for that is SSMS or the application you're using not consuming the results as fast as SQL Server is serving them.  Follow either of the suggested methods to remove the consumption of the rows from your measurement and you'll get a true(r) picture of the maximum IO throughput:


Discard results after execution
Assign the result to scalar variables


Just in case you haven't already, you'll obviously need to DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS to ensure the data is actually read from disk rather than buffer cache. Usual caveats of "on test only, don't do this in an active live environment" etc apply.

Honing in on a couple of your other comments:


  While executing a query that returns 9 million rows CPU usage will stay around 13% with 9% attributable to sqlserver... wouldn't it return the results quicker than 3 min if all data was in RAM?


What exactly are we testing here, how and why? If your 9 million row query is anything other than a SELECT * FROM dbo.SomeTable then there are a 1001 factors that come in to play, other than just raw IO throughput.

Your Intel I7-3820 is a 4-core processor. If your test query doesn't generate a parallel plan, I'd be surprised if you could thrash more than 20% CPU utilisation from the system.

The 3 minutes to return 9 million rows is very suspicious and suggests we're not getting a full picture of what your testing. My guess would be this is a case of sub-optimal (non-parallel) query plan, stuffed full of nested-loop operators pulling millions of rows i.e. not just a single table SELECT to verify the IO consumption.

I suggest:


SELECT * to test just IO through SQL Server. 
New question with the execution plan of your query if you want to dig into why it doesn't saturate the IO.