- Joined
- Feb 11, 2024
- Messages
- 108 (0.33/day)
- Location
- Canucksland
| System Name | Main / HTPC / Server |
|---|---|
| Processor | i5 14600K / Ryzen 5 2400G / i7 7700K |
| Motherboard | Z790 PRO RS / B450M Mortar / Z270 IX Code |
| Cooling | AS500 PLUS WH / Wraith Stealth / NH-D15 |
| Memory | 32GB 6000 C30 / 8GB 2666 C16 / 32GB 3000 C15 |
| Video Card(s) | GTX 780 (temporary) / iGPU / iGPU |
| Storage | (OS) 1600X 118GB / V200 120GB / 850 EVO 250GB |
| Display(s) | Predator XB271HU / KDL-55W950B / VH238H |
| Case | Eclipse P400S / LC13-BU / Define R5 |
| Audio Device(s) | Xonar U7 (HD 598) / Xfi Titanium (Azur 851A) |
| Power Supply | Prime Titanium 750W / M12II EVO 620W / AXi 860W |
Hi, need to pick your brains on something that's not quite clear wherever I am looking at.
Ok let's suppose I understand the theory:
USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 = 20 Gbps = RED ports - 2500 MB/s usually advertised as 2100 MB/s max speed
USB 3.2 Gen 2 = 10 Gbps = TURQUOISE (Green/Light blue depending on POVs in general discussions) ports - 1250 MB/s usually advertised as 1050 MB/s max speed
USB 3.2 Gen 1 = 5 Gbps = BLUE ports - 625 MB/s usually advertised well below 500 MB/s max speed
As advertised is usually below theoretical speeds I get that and why, and in the case of Gen 1 the hit is felt most - advertising usually around 400 MB/s is somehow the best you tend to see.
Let's suppose I also understand the practice: you get 1/2 RED ports on most Motherboards, and USB-C ports can SOMETIMES be only 10 Gbps especially on laptops or what the interface is from an external drive/USB flash drive, and the TURQUOISE ports are about nonexistent, so the most basic port is the BLUE one at 5 Gbps. It's the one you can count on across the largest span of hardware except high end Windows/Mac etc.
However, most external devices at relatively acceptable prices are Gen 2 = 10 Gbps speed. If USB-C you're alright for that speed, what you need to beware of is a USB-C external device advertising for 20 Gbps relative speed and a host computer/phone with a USB-C port that only does 10 Gbps.
But let's scratch USB-C because I don't want to buy into an external device using ONLY it. I have fairly 0 use or encounters of high end/Mac stuff using only it, and too sparse/unpractical/nonexistent access to them on most devices I DO OWN/ENCOUNTER.
I AM SOLELY INTERESTED IN USB Type A EXTERNAL STORAGE DEVICES - either flash sticks or external drives. I am even trying to avoid dual USB sticks because the solution often times is not ideal for capping/protection/durability/portability. I could do with an external SSD drive with both cables, but I am looking into a simple, lower footprint regular USB A stick (not especially Mini though because the speeds are often time lower for the asking price).
So we're looking into Type A connector, and the fact that a vast amount of external storage devices are proposing it WITH the Gen 2 speeds, whereas a real Gen 2 Type A port sparsely exist in the real world. Most are Gen 1 if not sparsely Gen 2x2 (RED). In the real world, as already pointed out, the type A TURQUOISE port is about nonexistent/CANNOT BE RELIED ON. The BLUE Gen 1 can. And between now and whenever it'll be outdated entirely, I don't expect any surge of the TURQUOISE type A one. On the contrary, most stuff is relying on USB-C ports to either do it or be the full 20 Gbps sort.
I do not want you to exhort me towards USB-C ports. I am asking about USB-A ports, the most available of them.
Let's hope, notwithstanding repetition, that this was clear enough.
Now... I do own Sandisk Extreme (non-PRO) USB flash drives since about 7 years. They were easily crushing the competition back then, and even nowadays IF WE LOOK AT USB 3.2 Gen 1 devices they are difficult to beat. I get 240 MB/s reads and 110 MB/s writes in Peak Performance (CDM), and just for fun I transfered a full 2GB movie out and back onto the drive (R/W) and got 230 MB/s to 100 MB/s. Which is about equal to Real Wold Performance in CDM (slightly faster reads to slightly slower writes I got 220 MB/s and 105 MB/s in CDM Real World). That was on a laptop on battery - and YES, typical Gen 1 ports. And this was with that drive almost full (26/29GB available) used very often since 7 years. I see a lot of USB flash drives in Gen 1 that can barely manage 180 MB/s Peak reads nowadays. By no way my old flash drives are slouch.
But they're low capacity - I have a 32GB and a 64GB. Also, they're far from maxing out their interface, as good (and still good) as they are. Finally, they're piss poor with RND4K stuff. In Q1T1 I get around 8/6 MB/s for Read/Write respectively.
QUESTION IS: what can I expect of using any of most USB-A Gen 2 external devices out there into a Gen 1 port?
Sadly reviews tend to use hardware to max out the performance - and DO NOT offer a comparative if into a Gen 1 port.
One of the rare reviews I've seen (Wired Cutter - Mushkin OWC) did mention it and complained that it went from around 900 MB/s to barely more than 400 MB/s on Gen 1 ports. Which if you ask me is nothing to complain about since it seemed to max out the real available bandwidth you'd ever expect to get on Gen 1. However it is also just about half the real performance on a proper USB Gen 2(x2) port.
So should I expect any advertised/real performance of most Gen 2 devices available to be cut in half? Or to just about max out the Gen 1 port instead no matter their advertised speed? It's a very different proposition.
For specifics, let's say I am looking at (both performance and price):
Patriot Supersonic Rage 512GB (Gen 2 promising and pretty much delivering, on the correct interface, 600 MB/s max performance Reads):
Or the better iterations of my own flash drives, the Sandisk Extreme PRO (Gen 1 promising and delivering about 400 MB/s max performance Reads):
Or this other one from Sandisk, the Luxe Ultra (non DUAL and non USB-C but really Type A Gen 1) that is SUPPOSED to be 400 MB/s as well but many benchmarks seem to rather attain barely equal speeds to my old Sandisk Extreme:
Let's say the latter one is suspect, but the question is, can I expect the Supersonic Rage to be about equal with the Extreme PRO since it's a Gen 2 that can do better on a Gen 2(x2) port therefore max out the Gen 1 port, or should I expect the Supersonic Rage to be about cut in half or worse? Which wouldn't be SO bad, slightly faster than my old Extreme overall, but less so than I would call ideal. Or should I rather go straight in for the Extreme PRO that is only Gen 1 and which speeds are from a Gen 1 port and pretty much widely considered to be sustained in real world use.
As you might guess, if I can expect any Gen 2 to about max out the Gen 1 port, it opens a lot of doors to a lot of better prices and a lot of different devices. If I should expect performance to be cut in half or worse, then it's a whole other ballpark and perhaps I'm willing to pay the price for the Extreme PRO drive because I trust Sandisk flash drives AND it's been known to deliver its advertised specs on the Gen 1 port.
I'll thank you in advance for insights or otherwise known behavior of Gen 2 devices into a Gen 1 port.
Ok let's suppose I understand the theory:
USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 = 20 Gbps = RED ports - 2500 MB/s usually advertised as 2100 MB/s max speed
USB 3.2 Gen 2 = 10 Gbps = TURQUOISE (Green/Light blue depending on POVs in general discussions) ports - 1250 MB/s usually advertised as 1050 MB/s max speed
USB 3.2 Gen 1 = 5 Gbps = BLUE ports - 625 MB/s usually advertised well below 500 MB/s max speed
As advertised is usually below theoretical speeds I get that and why, and in the case of Gen 1 the hit is felt most - advertising usually around 400 MB/s is somehow the best you tend to see.
Let's suppose I also understand the practice: you get 1/2 RED ports on most Motherboards, and USB-C ports can SOMETIMES be only 10 Gbps especially on laptops or what the interface is from an external drive/USB flash drive, and the TURQUOISE ports are about nonexistent, so the most basic port is the BLUE one at 5 Gbps. It's the one you can count on across the largest span of hardware except high end Windows/Mac etc.
However, most external devices at relatively acceptable prices are Gen 2 = 10 Gbps speed. If USB-C you're alright for that speed, what you need to beware of is a USB-C external device advertising for 20 Gbps relative speed and a host computer/phone with a USB-C port that only does 10 Gbps.
But let's scratch USB-C because I don't want to buy into an external device using ONLY it. I have fairly 0 use or encounters of high end/Mac stuff using only it, and too sparse/unpractical/nonexistent access to them on most devices I DO OWN/ENCOUNTER.
I AM SOLELY INTERESTED IN USB Type A EXTERNAL STORAGE DEVICES - either flash sticks or external drives. I am even trying to avoid dual USB sticks because the solution often times is not ideal for capping/protection/durability/portability. I could do with an external SSD drive with both cables, but I am looking into a simple, lower footprint regular USB A stick (not especially Mini though because the speeds are often time lower for the asking price).
So we're looking into Type A connector, and the fact that a vast amount of external storage devices are proposing it WITH the Gen 2 speeds, whereas a real Gen 2 Type A port sparsely exist in the real world. Most are Gen 1 if not sparsely Gen 2x2 (RED). In the real world, as already pointed out, the type A TURQUOISE port is about nonexistent/CANNOT BE RELIED ON. The BLUE Gen 1 can. And between now and whenever it'll be outdated entirely, I don't expect any surge of the TURQUOISE type A one. On the contrary, most stuff is relying on USB-C ports to either do it or be the full 20 Gbps sort.
I do not want you to exhort me towards USB-C ports. I am asking about USB-A ports, the most available of them.
Let's hope, notwithstanding repetition, that this was clear enough.
Now... I do own Sandisk Extreme (non-PRO) USB flash drives since about 7 years. They were easily crushing the competition back then, and even nowadays IF WE LOOK AT USB 3.2 Gen 1 devices they are difficult to beat. I get 240 MB/s reads and 110 MB/s writes in Peak Performance (CDM), and just for fun I transfered a full 2GB movie out and back onto the drive (R/W) and got 230 MB/s to 100 MB/s. Which is about equal to Real Wold Performance in CDM (slightly faster reads to slightly slower writes I got 220 MB/s and 105 MB/s in CDM Real World). That was on a laptop on battery - and YES, typical Gen 1 ports. And this was with that drive almost full (26/29GB available) used very often since 7 years. I see a lot of USB flash drives in Gen 1 that can barely manage 180 MB/s Peak reads nowadays. By no way my old flash drives are slouch.
But they're low capacity - I have a 32GB and a 64GB. Also, they're far from maxing out their interface, as good (and still good) as they are. Finally, they're piss poor with RND4K stuff. In Q1T1 I get around 8/6 MB/s for Read/Write respectively.
QUESTION IS: what can I expect of using any of most USB-A Gen 2 external devices out there into a Gen 1 port?
Sadly reviews tend to use hardware to max out the performance - and DO NOT offer a comparative if into a Gen 1 port.
One of the rare reviews I've seen (Wired Cutter - Mushkin OWC) did mention it and complained that it went from around 900 MB/s to barely more than 400 MB/s on Gen 1 ports. Which if you ask me is nothing to complain about since it seemed to max out the real available bandwidth you'd ever expect to get on Gen 1. However it is also just about half the real performance on a proper USB Gen 2(x2) port.
So should I expect any advertised/real performance of most Gen 2 devices available to be cut in half? Or to just about max out the Gen 1 port instead no matter their advertised speed? It's a very different proposition.
For specifics, let's say I am looking at (both performance and price):
Patriot Supersonic Rage 512GB (Gen 2 promising and pretty much delivering, on the correct interface, 600 MB/s max performance Reads):
Or the better iterations of my own flash drives, the Sandisk Extreme PRO (Gen 1 promising and delivering about 400 MB/s max performance Reads):
Or this other one from Sandisk, the Luxe Ultra (non DUAL and non USB-C but really Type A Gen 1) that is SUPPOSED to be 400 MB/s as well but many benchmarks seem to rather attain barely equal speeds to my old Sandisk Extreme:
Let's say the latter one is suspect, but the question is, can I expect the Supersonic Rage to be about equal with the Extreme PRO since it's a Gen 2 that can do better on a Gen 2(x2) port therefore max out the Gen 1 port, or should I expect the Supersonic Rage to be about cut in half or worse? Which wouldn't be SO bad, slightly faster than my old Extreme overall, but less so than I would call ideal. Or should I rather go straight in for the Extreme PRO that is only Gen 1 and which speeds are from a Gen 1 port and pretty much widely considered to be sustained in real world use.
As you might guess, if I can expect any Gen 2 to about max out the Gen 1 port, it opens a lot of doors to a lot of better prices and a lot of different devices. If I should expect performance to be cut in half or worse, then it's a whole other ballpark and perhaps I'm willing to pay the price for the Extreme PRO drive because I trust Sandisk flash drives AND it's been known to deliver its advertised specs on the Gen 1 port.
I'll thank you in advance for insights or otherwise known behavior of Gen 2 devices into a Gen 1 port.
Last edited:
Also it's VERY UP TO MB MANUFACTURER, pure marketing crap, one prefers color A other paints ports color B.