Hey guys,

I have USB 2.0 drivers installed from Intel’s website and I was trying to transfer data to Sandisk’s cruzer mini drive (256 mb) which is definitely usb 2.0. But, still my transfer speeds feel like USB 1.1. I can understand due to the limited harddrive speed of the tr the speeds can reach no where close to 480 Mbps (60 MBps) but still shouldnt it be atleast 10-15 MBps ??

I have the tr3ap3. I was trying to transfer the wallpapers that I downloaded from this forum (which totalled around 11 MB) to the sandisk cruzer mini drive…but it took like 5 secs to copy the 11 MB of data. USB 1.1 would take around 7-8 secs too. I have also tried it with a 200 MB folder having lots of files…it was still very slow…

ne remedies ??

This probably isn’t the answer…but is the performance of the Cruzer better on other USB2 systems? I’m wondering if the throughput of the device is the limiting factor. Although unlikely the culprit, it is a known fact that not all flash memory is alike.

Some of the higher end stuff comes in speeds which have higher throughput.

I’ve been looking to upgrade my old flash pendrive (32MB) with a newer, larger USB 2.0 Flash drive, so I’ve done a bit of research about performance.

Basicaly, when you get above USB 1.1 speeds, the limiting factor is the flash memory itself and not the speed of the interface.  “High quality” flash drive manufacturers seem to advertise an actual throughput of 8MB/seg MAX (under ideal conditions).  This tells me that in real life, chances are that we can’t expect more than half than that.

Regards,
Marcelo

Thanks guys for the replies.

gr00vy0ne, its performance is the same since I have tried it on another system as well. I have also tried another unit (cruzer mini 256 mb usb 2.0) which belonged to my friend and it gave me the same slow data transfer rates. so, it couldnt be my unit which is problematic.

If 8 MB/sec is the max rates that one can get then doesnt it suck that these people advertise 480 Mbps (60 MBps) speeds?

Also, after this experience, I was wondering if the IEEE interface would be better than USB 2.0. Since, I want to buy the Sony 80 gb gigavault drive which is available with the USB 2.0 interface and the IEEE interface. Could you’ll suggest if I should go in for the IEEE interface one or stick with USB 2.0?

Hi Rahul…

Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough.  USB 2.0 can do 480 Mb/seg (that is a theoretical limit of about 54 MB/seg).  What can’t sustain that rate is the flash memory itself.  It is like the hard drives specs… Ultra ATA 133 blah, blah, blah.. Read the media (hd surface) to head data rate and you’ll see why a HD can never use a 133 MB/seg interfase (unless of course it is transferring just 1 or 2 MB from the buffer)

As per the misleading advertising… well, it’s been a pattern in the industry since the begining of computers.. or your TR really has 40GB available on the HD?

I am not sure that even Alan Turing did not mislead people with the “memory” of his machine

Almost forgot…. Use any interfase that works for you.  I use USB 2.0 for an external HD because the TR can power the drive through USB…. Using Firewire would require me to carry yet another power supply (4pin vs 6 pin issue)

Regards,
Marcelo

I hope that the perceived advantage of the PCGA-HDM06 is correct with the power and ilink connections co-located on the same cord. Especially since I just ordered one. I wonder if sony will be adding this capability to it’s other notebooks (Z1, etc.) in the future?

Thanks Marcelo,

I was under the impression that the entire unit was capable of transferring data at 480 Mbps…didnt know only the interface was capable of those speeds.

it can be compared to silly sony advertising the battery life of the tr’s as 7 hrs…which can never happen.