USB 3.0 flash drive performance

Crystaldiskmark:
Why the result differ from other benchmark software?

The result depends on Test File Size, Test File Position, Fragmentation, IDE(PATA)/SATA/RAID/SCSI controller and CPU speed etc…
In a part of SSD, the result depends on test data(random, 0fill). Other software may use 0fill as test data.



PNY USB 3.0 FD USB Device
128 GB
Purchased approximately 1 - 2 years ago Best Buy

Type : USB
Status : Online
Current Read-only State : No
Read-only : No
Boot Disk : No
Pagefile Disk : No
Hibernation File Disk : No
Crashdump Disk : No
Clustered Disk : No

Ztruker said:

I ordered 3 of these:

SanDisk Ultra Flair 32GB USB 3.0 Flash Drive - SDCZ73-032G-G46,Silver
Price: $7.99 Prime & FREE Returns

Attachment 289332

• High speed USB 3.0 performance of up to 150MB/s
• Transfer a full length movie in less than 30 seconds
• Transfer to drive up to 15 times faster than standard USB 2.0 drives

Z:

I have a 256 GB Ultra Flair model, bought in 2018.

Takes 8 hours to write 90,000 random files totaling 200 gb--25 gb per hour.

For comparison--I typically get anywhere from 40 to 60 gb per hour with a Sandisk Extreme.

The key phrase in the marketing material re speed is "up to", which insulates them from complaints.

Here's a 4 year old Micro Center 64 gb USB 3.0, used every week or more to back up boot drive.
I just bought 2 new 256 gb USB 3.1 Micro Center drives and they are slower than molasses in January. Go figure. They were shipped and I'm in lock down here and can't return them now. I think from now on, I'll only buy them in store and insist we test their speed before I waste my money. ( 64 gb $8.00, 256 gb $27.00)

I recently purchased a kingston hyperx savage 64go usb flash drive(124go is better at writing). I had to take a sandisk extreme pro but there were negative opinions on amazon on the significant drop in write speed over time.

Those are outstanding speeds.

I know that this thread is about flash drives but I think it is instructive to show what the limits are for the USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 ports. I have done this using external SSD drives tested on both USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 ports. I have found the following:

• Even though NVMe SSD drives are faster that SATA SSD drives they are no faster on USB 3.0 ports because the USB 3.0 port is the limiting factor.
• SATA SSD drives are faster on USB 3.1 ports than USB 3.0 ports but on USB 3.1 ports it looks like the SATA interface is the limiting factor.
• NVMe SSD drives are faster than SATA SSD drives on USB 3.1 ports but on USB 3.1 ports it looks like the USB 3.1 port is the limiting factor.

None of the Flash drives I have used even come close to the speeds of SSD drives in enclosures. I think I have read about flash drives that come close to the speeds of external SATA SSD drives. I suspect that their prices are also comparable.

Most people don't want to spend $150 or more for a flash drive. In that case you have to look for the fastest you can afford. The results I have shown should be a yardstick for what is the upper limit to what is possible.
The problem with a lot of flash drives out there is most companies don't tell you the expected speeds for the drives they sell. There are some reviews out their but only for a small fraction of the flash drives available. Another thing to stay away from are flash drives that are USB 2.0. Also be careful because some flash drives that say USB 3.0 compatible are really only USB 2.0 drives that have been relabeled USB 3.0. Again their is no way to know in advance unless you have seen the reviews.

Beware of no-name drives listed anywhere especially Ebay. Some of these drives may be low end and extremely slow. Also be careful because there are fake drives out there. The sizes these drives report is not the true size with the real size much less.

I got tired of buying flash drives that were extremely slow. I have been buying SanDisk flash drives because they publish some if minimal specs for them. At least I know what I am getting.





- - - Updated - - -

Ztruker said:

I thought about buying one but $49.95 (Prime) at Amazon is a bit steep for me unless I have a real need for it. Right now I'm just messing around with WinToGo.

Just got my new Sandisk Ultra 32GB USB 3.0 flash drive (3). Here is what CrystalDiskMark (Portable) thinks of it:



Sequential ReadWrite is not too bad but the rest is awful. There good enough I'll keep them but that kingston hyperx savage 64go, though pricey, is the way to go.

These results look similar to those I got for a Sandisk Ultra 16GB USB 3.0 flash drive I have. I posted results for this earlier using CrystalDiskMark 7.0. Note that CrystalDiskMark 7.0 shows different results than CrystalDiskMark 6.0. This is shown below which are for the same Sandisk Ultra 16GB USB 3.0 flash drive.

Yes the speeds are exceptional. When I read reviews before purchasing this usb drive, if I understood correctly, there is a small group of hybrid usb flash drive. They are between ssd sata and usb flash drives and unlike ssd sata they do not have good read / write speeds on very small files. The sandisk extreme pro, Corsair Flash Voyager GTX (which supports the trim command), Kingston HyperX Savage (which if I understood correctly works with a controller on 2 or 4 channels) are part of these usb hybrid flash drives.


They are cheaper today than when they were released a few years ago.
I paid 41 € without the shipping costs it is also a bit steep for me, I should not put this price. I have to buy a 1 or 2TB external sata or nvme ssd and hope the prices will drop within 1 year.


Yes the external ssd speeds differ depending on which usb standard they are connected

NEW USB STANDARD: USB 3.2 TECHNOLOGY DECRYPTED:
Previous names -----------USB 3.1 Gen 1-----------USB 3.1 Gen 2------------N / A
New denomination---------USB 3.2 Gen 1-----------USB 3.2 Gen 2------------USB 3.2 Gen 2x2
Maximum speed------------5 Gb / s -----------------------10 Gb / s---------------- 20 Gb / s
Compatible interfaces-----Type A and type C-------Type A and C-------------Type C only