A true beast! I certainly did not expect this when I bought version 3.1 and put it onto the USB 3.1 connection. The speed I used to record a 2.5 GB movie in 40 seconds was around 60 mb/s. In 6.5 seconds, I went from a flash drive to a PC again; I didn't even have time to check the speed; I just leaped beneath 1-2 GB/s! I have no idea how it will act going forward, but as of right now, the speed is far higher than stated, and I couldn't be happier. It even records at 30 Mb/s on port 2.0.…

This flash drive's structure makes it cumbersome to insert it into narrow ports like the one on my computer. The building is unstable and made of weak materials. This is understandable given the low cost and fast recording time. There is a tiny overstatement in the entry. The stated reading speeds are not achieved. It's possible that larger capacity models have greater speeds. Has been found to be original. Screenshots of further test results, including those for USB 2.0 and 3.0. I wagered…

Anyone who can safely purchase a USB flash drive with a low but reliable write speed is qualified. Personally, I don't think it's adequate for my purposes; I was hoping for a speed of 50–60 mb/s and got three times less. The speeds are not stated anywhere on the package, however they are reported to be greater online and in reviews after being verified by benchmarks. I used a 6-core, 12-thread processor in Windows 10 to duplicate the file with real-world speed; the original was on a Samsung EVO

This is the same narrative as the one where the author states that the copy speed decreases when set to 0. Taken from a dedicated forum dealing with a similar issue about a different flash drive, the standard response is as follows: "a bad flash drive puts part of the file into the buffer, then saves it from the buffer to disk, and so on until it copies the entire file." The recording consequently "jerks" for this reason.

It seems to me that real copying is better than any synthetic tests . Windows NTFS. Recording via USB 2.0 on the front panel of a computer with HDD Sata movie 5.5 GB - 4 minutes, of which 1 minute - copy completion (copy window freezes, flash drive flashes). End speed 29 MB/sec. From the same disk via USB 3.0 on the back of the computer, a 5.8 GB movie takes 2 minutes 15 seconds, of which 15 seconds. - completion of copying. End speed 59 MB/sec. I like shorter)

I just bought and downloaded CristalDiskMark today. The reading speed is 32mb/sec, the write speed is from 8 to 18mb/sec, I think it's low and still unstable, the speed jumps straight. It takes minutes to copy a 1.45 GB movie

I don't understand why the line of these flash drives is being praised so much. I took three drives 32/64/128 and I was disappointed in all of them, the symptoms and data processing are the same for everyone. But in general, it still pulls out for a C grade for dragging movies / anime, music or other digital garbage. You can consider it as a media archive. Any volumetric data like PSD, I would not trust her

with flash drives from Transcend 128GB USB 3.0, I also insert them into the 3.0 connector in the computer and also in the same way, recording starts at around 30mb / s and after a couple of seconds drops to 0 or a couple of hundred kb / s, hangs for a while and then rises again for about up to 30mb/s for a couple of seconds and again to zero. I honestly have no idea what it depends on and how to fix it, but this topic really infuriates me, I want to throw a 60GB or 80 GB movie onto a flash…

I took a fast flash drive for work, because I didn’t want to spend a lot of time transferring files from a flash drive to a hard drive and back. I opted for this model due to the reputation of the brand, personal experience and advice from friends. Satisfied with purchase. Works smart. There were no special complaints, but the design feature is slightly unnerving.

I use large flash drives to copy a virtual machine with a 20GB disk from a computer with USB2. With simultaneous archiving with a Rar profile (high-speed archiving, division into 150 MB volumes) and copying archives to a USB flash drive using Silicon Power, the task is completed in 4 minutes, and with Transcend in 6 minutes. On a machine with USB3 - both flash drives have the same thing, but 2 times faster.

Pros: Nice fast flash drive. No worse or better than others in this class. Cons: Plastic, this causes insufficient strength. But what can you demand from a budget product?

a year of use has passed, everything is still working fine, a full assembly with all versions of Windows Linux, resuscitators, a megapack of auto-installer of all kinds of software and drivers has climbed, it has already justified its price many times, I go with it to work as a computer master, all the software that you need is always placed under hand, helps out in any situation, of course, it would be absolutely ideal 256gb for capturing images directly on it with acronis, when I get rich I…

The speed is slightly lower than expected, but approximately at the level of classmates in terms of cost. . USB 3.0 is present not only on paper, the speed on this port is 2 - 2.5 times higher. Screenshot of tests attached. . Reliability is too early to assess, bought recently. Maybe I'll add it later. . The price is high, I expected it to be cheaper, but I needed a flash drive with a recording speed higher than 5mbs, I chose this one based on reviews. Yes, and analogues will be cheaper by a…

Flash Drive Dimensions: 63.6mm x 21.2mm x 10.6mm, In use since November 2022, works regularly. Purchased to replace SanDisk Ultra Dual USB Drive 3.0 as SanDisk has a very slow write speed. I recommend to buy. In addition, the price from 2022. in November 2022, it dropped to 1450. as of August 2022 With its pros: LED indicator; Does not have a cap, equipped with a retractable USB connector; Read/write speed. Has some cons: For more than 8 months of use, no shortcomings have been identified.

Some pros: + No obvious problems The actual reading speed is higher than stated. Its cons: The write speed in real conditions is somewhere around 28 mb.

Took to create a bootable flash drive. I rarely use it and for the price it's a great option. For everyday use, I use another, stronger one, with a metal rotary protective mechanism.

I bought a 16 GB flash drive for 500 a white version. I like. I don’t know about the black one, but in the white and blue version, the light bulb really shines on the floor of the case. Firstly, it is bright, and, secondly, the plastic is translucent (from the front to 2/3, from the back to 1/3 of the size of the flash drive. I have a USB connector on the back of my laptop, so the light does not interfere, but I think it will be conspicuous if it is in sight. In USB 2.0, as well as 3.0, there

What kind of stuffing (silently, of course, they won’t be notified anywhere about this) was invested in this upgrade ?. And in general, how will it work further, this is a miracle of Chinese thought.? Transend as a brand faded in my eyes. There is no trust and never will be. And he also dreamed about the 780th model . kapets. Has pros: I liked the Transcend JetFlash 790 64Gb flash drive of the same name, which I bought three years ago for my wife for movies. Works flawlessly for three years…

The speed is much better than their "younger brothers" of the same company at 64 and 32 GB. This flash drive has been serving for more than six months, the younger ones of the same company have been serving for more than 3 years. There have been no problems so far. The retractable mechanism does not break, but it is not always / not very convenient to use it. Does not affect work.

Attached are the CrystalDiskMark8 results, 2 runs at 128MB, on a new Asus Zephyrus G14 with antivirus paused. I did the test 3 times. The results were the same. The numbers are lower than the Samsung FIT Plus 64GB, but still reasonable. The differences between sequential and random seem reasonable (sequential write speed around 27.7 MB/s, random write 11.5 MB/s). /s) were almost as fast as reads (150MB/s - same as 16GB) but horrible random write speeds (around 3MB/s vs 11.5MB/s for 16GB) for 3…