Add to Reddit
4 KB Random Access Performance
USB Flash Drive |
Capacity |
Read Speed |
Write Speed |
Average |
Difference |
SanDisk Cruzer Micro SDCZ6 |
2 GB |
6.26 MB/s |
0.01 MB/s |
3.14 MB/s |
+ 1.1% |
Kingston DataTraveler Ultimate 3.0 |
16 GB |
5.52 MB/s |
0.68 MB/s |
3.10 MB/s |
Baseline |
Active Media Wink |
16 GB |
5.65 MB/s |
0.03 MB/s |
2.84 MB/s |
- 8.4% |
OCZ Rally 2 |
2 GB |
4.79 MB/s |
0.03 MB/s |
2.41 MB/s |
- 22.3% |
Kingston DataTraveler c10 |
4 GB |
4.74 MB/s |
0.02 MB/s |
2.38 MB/s |
- 23.2% |
Kingston DataTraveler DT110G |
8 GB |
4.35 MB/s |
0.01 MB/s |
2.18 MB/s |
- 29.7% |
Corsair Flash Voyager |
4 GB |
0.11 MB/s |
0.05 MB/s |
0.08 MB/s |
- 97.4% |
OCZ Mini-Kart |
1 GB |
0.06 MB/s |
0.04 MB/s |
0.05 MB/s |
- 98.4% |
The Kingston DataTraveler Ultimate 3.0 actually lost out to both the SanDisk Cruzer Micro SDCZ6 and the Active Media Wink in the 4 KB random read test. However, its phenomenal 4 KB random write speed (as far as USB flash drives go) put it in second place.
512 KB Random Access Performance
USB Flash Drive |
Capacity |
Read Speed |
Write Speed |
Average |
Difference |
Kingston DataTraveler Ultimate 3.0 |
16 GB |
69.32 MB/s |
4.86 MB/s |
37.09 MB/s |
Baseline |
Active Media Wink |
16 GB |
32.19 MB/s |
1.96 MB/s |
17.08 MB/s |
- 54.0% |
OCZ Rally 2 |
2 GB |
28.37 MB/s |
1.86 MB/s |
15.12 MB/s |
- 59.2% |
SanDisk Cruzer Micro SDCZ6 |
2 GB |
27.72 MB/s |
1.30 MB/s |
14.51 MB/s |
- 60.9% |
Kingston DataTraveler c10 |
4 GB |
21.63 MB/s |
1.64 MB/s |
11.64 MB/s |
- 68.6% |
Kingston DataTraveler DT110G |
8 GB |
17.50 MB/s |
2.39 MB/s |
9.95 MB/s |
- 73.2% |
Corsair Flash Voyager |
4 GB |
8.15 MB/s |
3.88 MB/s |
6.02 MB/s |
- 83.8% |
OCZ Mini-Kart |
1 GB |
5.09 MB/s |
2.98 MB/s |
4.04 MB/s |
- 89.1% |
When it came to large 512 KB random reads and writes, the Kingston DataTraveler Ultimate 3.0 was the undisputed champion. Its fast flash memory and USB 3.0 interface allowed it to breach the 33 MB/s ceiling of USB 2.0 drives, leaving its competitor far behind in read speed. Its write speed was much slower, but it still managed to beat its nearest competitor by almost 2.5x!
Support Tech ARP!
If you like our work, you can help support out work by visiting our sponsors, participate in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donate to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!
<<< Sustained Read Transfer Rate, Sustained Write Transfer Rate : Previous Page | Next Page : 4 KB + 512 KB Sequential Access Performance >>>
