http://www.ces-show.com/news_images/00271_sandisk-cruzer-usb-flash-drive...
If any of you have this Cruzer, can anyone post the read/write speed with benchmarks tools like HD Speed? http://www.steelbytes.com/?mid=20
Thanks! Please post your speeds here. I have been trying to find the read speed before I buy.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
Haven't got that exact drive, but got a Sandisk Cruzer Blade 8GB FD, read speed 16 MB/s. And a Kingstone DataTraveler 2 (v 1.0) 2GB FD, which is slightly better - 20 MB/s. A 1GB Peak USB2.0 drive holds the same speed as the Sandisk, 16 MB/s.
If the size of the thumbdrive is bigger, it will have lesser read and write speed. That is most cases but correct me if Im wrong
No. It's just a matter of NAND and controller speed. Size has negligible impact on drive speed nowadays. That was when contollers and nand chips were so slow that organization of write processes slowed things down.
I do have a Sandisk Cruzer 2GB which I've never speed tested - never saw the point - but I have just acquired a new 16GB own-name drive from 7dayshop.com that is averaging 17 MB/s using the suggested utility.
Personally I can't see a situation where the read and write speeds of a thumb drive are "mission critical". To my mind the capacity is as, if not more, important than the speed, and let's face it, the whole idea of the device is to be able to use it on any machine - where the speed of the host and the USB connection might well be more of a limitation - but that's just my opinion, of course; your mileage, as they say, may vary.
BarryH - thenudehamster
Nothing to do with pet rodents - it's where I used to live.
Any opinion expressed above is herein warranted only to be worth exactly what you paid for it.
People do not really care the read and write speed because they arent really used as a 'portable computer'. What I meant is that lets say you are going overaea and you can use a computer there. Plug in your USB drive and your favourite apps will be ready. My thumbdrive is to store games, but it is slow, so im thinking about cruzer as cruzer micro 2gb (my friend had one) read speed is 28mb/s.
When it comes to games, you will need a fast drive, or it will take hours to load it, and no one would like it. That is why im dying for a fast drive. Since that new cruzer is not thay fast, i will reconsider it
Don't want to start another speed discussion, but transfer speeds in MB/s using one (normally large) block size is not very convincing. Top speed with large blocks is just one parameter and matters when transferring music/video files for instance. Used as base drive for portable apps, often small files or data chunks is transferred and that is where fast drives ar divided from slow ones. I have one 8GB pendrive which is relatively fast with large files but normally breaks down with transfer of small data. It feels quite sluggish compared to another one that has better speed ratings with small files, but nominally the same top speed rating (both about 25 MB/s. Best example would be my external 1.8" HD that seems faster first (30MB/s) and roughly keeps that speed down to 256K blocks but than completely breaks down to a fraction of pendrive speeds with small blocks 4K blocks read at just 1/10.
So just one value means nothing without measurement parameters.
Try Crystal Disk Mark with a cascade of small blocks...
Yeah, I wish people would include the 4K IOPs figure any time they discuss thumb drive speed. Few thumb drives have good IOP figures, but anything less than 100 and some apps (like Thunderbird) will be almost unbearably sluggish.
Here's to hoping that thumb drive SSDs become more common.
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]
Sequential Read : 20.655 MB/s
Sequential Write : 3.121 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 20.517 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 1.914 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 5.464 MB/s [ 1334.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.029 MB/s [ 7.2 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 6.398 MB/s [ 1561.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.034 MB/s [ 8.2 IOPS]
Test : 50 MB [I: 87.1% (1672.1/1918.9 MB)] (x5)
drive: Kingston DataTraveler 2
Sequential Read : 16.823 MB/s
Sequential Write : 2.247 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 16.780 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 1.385 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 6.546 MB/s [ 1598.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.030 MB/s [ 7.3 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 7.176 MB/s [ 1751.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.028 MB/s [ 6.9 IOPS]
Test : 50 MB [K: 0.0% (0.0/960.0 MB)] (x5)
drive: PEAK 1GB USB2.0
The Sandisk Cruzer Blade drive's at the other end of town, but a test the other day gave values along those for the PEAK drive, maybe even a bit below on the 4KB figures.
I wish people would include information on if they meant read or write when they make statements like "anything less than 100"...
FWIW: Diskmark for Patriot Xporter XT
----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 3.0 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : [snip] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s] Sequential Read : 27.435 MB/s Sequential Write : 11.198 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 20.171 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 5.034 MB/s Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 5.717 MB/s [ 1395.7 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.634 MB/s [ 154.7 IOPS] Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 6.176 MB/s [ 1507.7 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.646 MB/s [ 157.6 IOPS] Test : 50 MB [X: 62.7% (4783.9/7635.0 MB)] (x1) Date : 2011/02/06 17:08:56 OS : Windows 7 Home Premium Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64) Drive: Patriot Xporter XT 8 GBSorry, I should have mentioned write speed less than 100 IOPS. Even 150 is almost unbearable. I can't even imagine how bad it'd be if read speed were below 100 IOPS.