Iometer sequential write performance benchmarks

The Super Talent Express RC8 flash drive dominates the field in sequential diminutive file writes. Notice, however, the rest of the USB 3.0 drives already pulling relatively far ahead of the USB 2.0 drives.

The RC8 continues its domination, though the ADATA S102 starts to pull away from the pack as well.

Once we hit file sizes of 512KB and higher, the field changes dramatically. The Patriot Supersonic Magnum now leads by a nearly 100% margin. Note USB 2.0 Kingston R500 edges the USB 3.0 Super Talent Express DUO in this benchmark.

We see a very similar pattern with 1MB file sizes compared to 512KB file sizes, though the USB 3.0 Super Talent Express DUO now leads the USB 2.0 Kingston R500.

The performance hierarchy, at least in terms of sequential file writes as measured by Iometer, appears to have coalesced.

This pattern remains consistent as file sizes approach 1GB, the upper limit of Iometer's file size testing range.

You can see from these write benchmarks that USB 3.0 mitigates the storage flash drive's main weakness: slow file writes. Reading from a flash drive is almost always substantially faster than writing to it. Hopefully these dramatically faster write benchmarks translate to dramatically faster writes in real-world usage. But first, the read benchmarks, on the next page.

Testing Methods and Sample Flash Drives USB 3.0 and 2.0 Flash Drive Native Interface Read Performance
POST A COMMENT

41 Comments

View All Comments

  • rickcain2320 - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link

    I really wished firewire had gained more traction in the market. I've had nothing but trouble with USB over the years, with quirky connection behavior to buggy driver sets to slow transfer speeds. Reply
  • Rick83 - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link

    20 GB was not huge.
    In fact, in 1998/1999 I had a 30 GB disk in a relatively cheap off-the-shelf computer.
    So by 2002, 60/80 GB would have been 'huge', but 20 was becoming pretty much standard for new machines.
    Reply
  • ckryan - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link

    My average system drive size never really increased all that much over the years. In 1998/1999 I had a 20GB system. When I built a new Pentium 4 system in 2003 I put an original 36GB 10K Raptor in it. I used it for quite some time. All of my laptops from the last decade always had around 40GB of very slow HDD. Then in the last two years I put small SSDs in all of my systems, until recently, when I bought and Intel 510 120GB for my main system. In many ways not having a ton of space taught me to optimize what I would put on my drive and how to make the most of it, helping me into the early days of SSDs where space is at a premium, especially in a mobile system where you only have access to one drive.

    Though now that I think about it, what the hell were people doing with all that space (besides games)? I'll have to find my old late 90's vintage system and see. My first computer was a 386sx 16, a packard bell, with a 40megabyte hdd. I could install windows 3.1 OR Ultima 7, but not both. So in twenty years I went from a 40MB HDD and 1.44MB "High Density" floppies to 3TB HDD, super fast SSDs, and enormous flash drives. Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but I seem to be waxing nostalgic a lot recently about the "Good old days" that never really were.
    Reply
  • randinspace - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link

    Around that same time period I got into some pretty dubious translation "scenes" ("they're are for educational purposes") and had to go from a DELL with a 20gb HDD to a custom build packing a 60 GB drive within a mere year, but between prices being what they were and eventually abandoning my desktop for a laptop it made a lot more sense to me to rely upon DVDs for long term storage until just a couple of years ago. Now my netbook has a bigger HDD than my first external HDD did but the idea of losing so much data/material at once completely terrifies me since everybody else's projects got derailed left and right back then due to HDD failures... Actually, I wonder how often hardware failure was just an excuse by lazy/greedy translators/editors? More than health problems anyway.

    That said, video encoding techniques have somehow advanced at a rate that makes it possible to have not only better resolutions but lower file sizes than we did back then (not accounting for the likes of .flv and morons that decide to distribute .ts files and bloated Blu-Ray .isos) as long as you have a decent CPU, but instead of taking the gains and running this has somehow inspired most people to ratchet up the space taken up by the audio side for all that the last thing that makes a difference in one's experience of something in a language they can't understand (that might be subtitled in a language they only barely understand) is the difference between AAC and FLAC.

    Even in certain games the largest part of the install might be the audio, and by the same token since CDs are still hanging in there but people now have TB of storage instead of MB (sticking a CD in the drive or having your stereo nearby to listen to it) or GB (I'm glad that .rmf is far behind me but .ogg and .mp3 are still valid for most setups) there isn't a lot of incentive for most people to "limit themselves" to either highly compressed or even variable bitrate files instead of WAV (LOL, though some make an argument for the time saved encoding) and FLAC and APE and what have you (my personal favorite of the bunch is TTA but too many people fail at it for some reason).

    OK I put too much text in parentheses there, but since I wasn't using my disk space on games the short answer to your question of what people were using the space for aside from them is hoarding AV... In fact there's a really apt quote that shows up on DailyTech from somebody (either a seagate or WD executive, I think) commenting that by providing consumers with storage capacity they were just helping them watch porn or something like that.
    Reply
  • Stahn Aileron - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link

    I'm pretty sure he meant relatively to portable storage solutions, not internal to a computer.

    Actually, when exactly did portable HDD's come into the mainstream?
    Reply
  • hurrakan - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link

    Thanks.

    I have a 32GB Kingston Data Traveller Ultimate 3 but it's annoying because it needs an attachment to use USB2. And as very few computers have USB3, I always have to carry the attachment.

    I wish the "Kingston HyperX MAX USB3" had been included - I would have liked to see how it compares.

    Also, it would be awesome if Anandtech conducted a benchmark of microSD cards (different brands and classes).
    Reply
  • randinspace - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link

    I was thinking the same thing since I've been wondering a lot about the performance of SD/micro~/SDHC/micro~ considering the fact that just about any device with USB input will also have a card reader but the opposite isn't necessarily true, tablets and smart phones for example. Hell, even my netbook has an SD card slot. Reply
  • HangFire - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link

    Nice review.

    Now, I'd like to see Motherboards on Bench, with SATA 2/3, USB 2/3, Gb Ethernet, and memory bandwidth benchmarks.
    Reply
  • blowfish - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link

    of course the principal benefit of USB over eSATA is the ability to hot swap a USB connected device. If that's not important to you, then eSATA is very cost effective. I expect to see eSATA/USB 3.0 hard drive enclosures appear before too long though, which would allow the best of both worlds. I think many USB problems relate to power - some older motherboards can't handle all the USB ports being filled and can give erratic results. Reply
  • mino - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link

    You hot-swap eSATA just the same. And the main reason is performance - USB3 could not EVER reach eSATA performance levels, basically because of the protocol overhead even if everything was equal. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now