Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted February 22, 2008 Corsair Employees Share Posted February 22, 2008 Where in that post did I state the performance of the drive or any drive? NO Where!!! I would suggest calling and asking for me and I will be happy to talk to you, I would be interest to know who sent you that 16 Gig GT as they should not have done so. 510-578-1421 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doogie Posted February 22, 2008 Author Share Posted February 22, 2008 Where in that post did I state the performance of the drive or any drive? NO Where!!! I would suggest calling and asking for me and I will be happy to talk to you, I would be interest to know who sent you that 16 Gig GT as they should not have done so. 510-578-1421 Sure happy to show you your own quotes...there all on this forum. POST ID # = 332069 | #20 above in my post Ram Guy: "Current Non GT 8 Gig FV Voyager will read about 9.1 Mbps and write 3.3Mbps." POST ID # = 332475 | #3 in "that post" Ram Guy: "4 Gig FV non GT will read about 19.2 MBps and Write about 2.2 MBps" Actually, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I think you're pretty even handed in dealing with these issues...but, I'm not ready to just throw up my hands and blame fate...I'd really like to understand what's is going on in your production line? :): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted February 22, 2008 Corsair Employees Share Posted February 22, 2008 POST ID # = 332069 | #20 above in my post Ram Guy: "Current Non GT 8 Gig FV Voyager will read about 9.1 Mbps and write 3.3Mbps." POST ID # = 332475 | #3 in "that post" Ram Guy: "4 Gig FV non GT will read about 19.2 MBps and Write about 2.2 MBps" But those quotes are not from that link on the reviews are they? And where is it I have stated the drive would perform at the level you are claiming. Actually, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I think you're pretty even handed in dealing with these issues...but, I'm not ready to just throw up my hands and blame fate...I'd really like to understand what's is going on in your production line? LOL! Well I don't know if that is important but what exactly is it you want me to say. I think I have been very clear and straight forward in all of my responses at least I always try to be 100% forward and honest. With the exception of the odd mistake I think I have been and one of the reasons I have 99% of the users respect here. Certainly I understand if some one is from my home state and maybe has a "Show Me" attitude I can deal with that no problem at all. But its like you are fishing for a smoking Gun and I assure you there is not one its just evolution of technology in general. Sometimes to make steps forward you have to take a step back is the way I look at things. And for me once I answer a post I move on to something else there is no grudge or animosity its my job and I do it every day like I have for the last 20 or so years. There is no room for feeling or emotion just do it! I am here to do one thing and that is to help our customers solve their problems or questions. Most of what you are saying are things that are not for me to answer as it is not a direct support question and maybe more a marketing question. So again I would be happy to help you if you would like to call but to keep this going is not going to help you or any one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doogie Posted February 22, 2008 Author Share Posted February 22, 2008 But those quotes are not from that link on the reviews are they? No, they are the ONLY quotes that I referred to..."That is certainly better than the 3.3MB/S you quote above, or the 2.2MB/s you quote here" And where is it I have stated the drive would perform at the level you are claiming. Never said that you "stated it", just that you post it...as a sticky! Regarding the "link" what I said was "...no where near the performance level that you post here" Hey baby, it's your post, got Corsair's name all over it :D: LOL! Well I don't know if that is important but what exactly is it you want me to say. I think I have been very clear and straight forward in all of my responses at least I always try to be 100% forward and honest. With the exception of the odd mistake I think I have been and one of the reasons I have 99% of the users respect here. Certainly I understand if some one is from my home state and maybe has a "Show Me" attitude I can deal with that no problem at all. But its like you are fishing for a smoking Gun and I assure you there is not one its just evolution of technology in general. Sometimes to make steps forward you have to take a step back is the way I look at things. And for me once I answer a post I move on to something else there is no grudge or animosity its my job and I do it every day like I have for the last 20 or so years. There is no room for feeling or emotion just do it! I am here to do one thing and that is to help our customers solve their problems or questions. Most of what you are saying are things that are not for me to answer as it is not a direct support question and maybe more a marketing question. So again I would be happy to help you if you would like to call but to keep this going is not going to help you or any one else. Actually, I think it has been very helpful to have this post return to the top of list over the past week or so, if only because it helps to balance any misunderstanding that visitors might get from following the links in the "Flash Reviews!" sticky. You can thank me later...LOL :laughing: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doogie Posted February 25, 2008 Author Share Posted February 25, 2008 All testing is always done in Fat16 or Fat32 and never NTFS, using NTFS on a flash drive will slow the performance and decrease the life of the drive. The other thing that I see from your testing is the results seem to be consistent with the respective system suggesting that the slower performance may be system related. Do you have a newer Desktop system that is non OEM like a MB from ASUS, ABIT, DFI, MSI or GigaByte that is AMD64 or Intel LGA775 to compare? My point being that in one of your examples the performance is about on par: And I have seen a wider variance on non Intel platform systems so your results do not surprise me. We are still doing some testing so I don't have any further to add. And you have to keep in mind if you are comparing an older 8 Gig FV Non GT that was made with SLC technology it will have the best performance. But that is not available any more. Current Non GT 8 Gig FV Voyager will read about 9.1 Mbps and write 3.3Mbps. OK, I converted the file systems on both the 8GB Voyager and the 16GB GT to FAT32 as requested and have rerun all of the tests. The results are: Platform 1: Dell Dimension 2400, 1GB RAM, 400MHZ FSB, CPU Intel 2.4GHz Celeron USB Controller: Intel 82801 DB/DSM EHC File System: FAT32 HD-Bench (v3.30) (16GB GT) Read: 27.4MB/s and Write: 14.3MB/s (8GB non-GT) Read: 29.7MB/s and Write: 9.6MB/s HD-Tach (v3.0.4.0)"long bench test" (16BG GT) Read: 27.9MB/s (8GB non-GT) Read: 29.5MB/s HD-Tune (v2.55) (16GB GT) Read: 26.4MB/s (8GB non-GT) Read: 27.2MB/s ATTO Benchmark (v2.34) (16GB GT) Read: 28.9MB/s and Write: 21MB/s (8GB non-GT) Read: 29.5MB/s and Write: 9MB/s Platform 2: Toshiba A85-S107, 1.25GB RAM, 400MHZ FSB, CPU Intel 1.4GHz Celeron USB Controller: Standard Enhanced PCI to USB 2.0 Host Controller (chip unknown?)File System: FAT32 HD-Bench (v3.30) (16GB GT) Read: 13.8MB/s and Write: 10.2MB/s (8GB non-GT) Read: 13.9MB/s and Write: 6.5MB/s HD-Tach (v3.0.4.0)"long bench test" (16BG GT) Read: 14.1MB/s (8GB non-GT) Read: 14.2MB/s HD-Tune (v2.55) (16GB GT) Read: 13.4MB/s (8GB non-GT) Read: 13.5MB/s ATTO Benchmark (v2.34) (16GB GT) Read: 14.2MB/s and Write: 11.8MB/s (8GB non-GT) Read: 14.3MB/s and Write: 9.1MB/s Platform 3: ASUS A7N266, 1GB RAM, 266MHZ FSB, CPU AMD Athlon XP 2400+ (2.0GHz) USB Controller: VIA Enhanced PCI to USB 2.0 Host Controller (via a PCI "add-in" card) File System: FAT32 HD-Bench (v3.30) (16GB GT) Read: 29.2MB/s and Write: 12MB/s (8GB non-GT) Read: 29.5MB/s and Write: 6.8MB/s HD-Tach (v3.0.4.0)"long bench test" (16BG GT) Read: 29.9MB/s (8GB non-GT) Read: 30.5MB/s HD-Tune (v2.55) (16GB GT) Read: 28.4MB/s (8GB non-GT) Read: 29.5MB/s ATTO Benchmark (v2.34) (16GB GT) Read: 29.6MB/s and Write: 17.8MB/s (8GB non-GT) Read: 32MB/s and Write: 9.7MB/s Note: any values appearing in bold font represent a significant improvement Observations & Conclusions: My earlier post was on tests involving these same 3 platforms, except that on Platform 3, I changed the PCI to USB 2.0 controller card from one based upon the ALi M5271 chip to one that was based upon the VIA VT6212L chip...MAN, DID THAT MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE! Despite trying all of the updated drivers for the ALi controller, the board continued to choke. The Write speeds were only a fraction of what the GT was capable of. Additionally, in previous testing the ALi chip frequently caused "write delay" failures when a test was immediately repeated...even though Windows XP recognized the ALI board and installed it without a problem. Later while searching for various drivers in an attempt to improve performance, I came across many posts from others who had similar problems with the ALi controller. From my testing, I found the ATTO Benchmark always gave me the most repeatable results and the highest Write speeds for both drives. I would also conclude that there is little difference in performance between NTFS and FAT32 files sytems. If you've got a decent USB controller, I would expect the following from these two drives: 8GB Corsair Voyager (purchased 1/2008): Read: >29MB/s and Write: >6.5MB/s 16GB Voyager GT: Read: >29MB/s and Write: >12MB/s I basically found NO DIFFERENCE in the Read speeds between the GT and the non-GT and the Write speed of the GT is about twice that of the non-GT I know from other posts on this forum that Corsair is downplaying the Write speeds of their non-GT drives... RAM GUY: "Current Non GT 8 Gig FV Voyager will read about 9.1 Mbps and write 3.3Mbps." and "4 Gig FV non GT will read about 19.2 MBps and Write about 2.2 MBps". However, my testing would indicate the drivers are capable of better performance PROVIDED your on-board or add-in USB controller performs well. :roll: Hope this is helpful to those of you for whom performance is a very important aspect of your buying decision! ;): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 <b>How does the 16GB GT compare with the 16GB non GT version?</b> I am in the market for a 16 or 32GB Voyager drive, but also didn't realise uptill 5 minutes ago that it would have to be formatted in FAT32 to make the most of it. Luckily, haven't got an ALi chipset! So, as I understand it so far, corsair 32 GB has READ 19-21MB/s WRITE 7-13MB/s (obviously dependant on how many files/size etc) so these figures don't really mean much. These are the upper and lower limits I have seen so far in reviews - Corsair doesn't help much with their 'brochure'. Something to the effect - 'Our Voyagers are lots and lots faster than everyone elses, so there!' Ok, Corsair 16GB non GT, as far as I can tell has READ 22MB/s, WRITE 7MB/s. I'm tempted to wait (as I have done for the last 2 months now) a little longer for the 16GB GT version to be reviewed further, but then the 32GB GT will be in the pipeline. Oh, woe. So, what would be the difference between 16GB GT, and non GT after this little rant. Thank you both for your input so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffreyf Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Here is Corsair's press release. http://www.corsair.com/news/press_release.aspx?id=462659 Pretty impressive to my way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doogie Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 Here is Corsair's press release. http://www.corsair.com/news/press_release.aspx?id=462659 Pretty impressive to my way of thinking. Well, the price is impressive...just like Corsair, they post data in the press release, but neglect to point out if it's Read or Write or an average of both? Looks to be Write speeds, but I've learned not to assume anything...LOL :laughing: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doogie Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 <b>How does the 16GB GT compare with the 16GB non GT version?</b> I am in the market for a 16 or 32GB Voyager drive, but also didn't realise uptill 5 minutes ago that it would have to be formatted in FAT32 to make the most of it. Luckily, haven't got an ALi chipset! So, as I understand it so far, corsair 32 GB has READ 19-21MB/s WRITE 7-13MB/s (obviously dependant on how many files/size etc) so these figures don't really mean much. These are the upper and lower limits I have seen so far in reviews - Corsair doesn't help much with their 'brochure'. Something to the effect - 'Our Voyagers are lots and lots faster than everyone elses, so there!' Ok, Corsair 16GB non GT, as far as I can tell has READ 22MB/s, WRITE 7MB/s. I'm tempted to wait (as I have done for the last 2 months now) a little longer for the 16GB GT version to be reviewed further, but then the 32GB GT will be in the pipeline. Oh, woe. So, what would be the difference between 16GB GT, and non GT after this little rant. Thank you both for your input so far. Git, regarding the 16GB GT vs the 16GB non-GT...I'd expect they'd have about the same Read speed and the Write speed for the non-GT would be about 1/2 of what I posted for the GT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Thanks for the reply. So really it just boils down to write speed. Once its all copied to the USB flash, then there really doesn't seem to be much in it. Think I might as well go for the 32GB not GT version then..... But then again, might wait to see when the 64GB comes out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doogie Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 Thanks for the reply. So really it just boils down to write speed. Once its all copied to the USB flash, then there really doesn't seem to be much in it. Think I might as well go for the 32GB not GT version then..... But then again, might wait to see when the 64GB comes out! NOW I know why they call you "Git"! :laughing: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doogie Posted March 9, 2008 Author Share Posted March 9, 2008 So, as I understand it so far, corsair 32 GB has READ 19-21MB/s WRITE 7-13MB/s (obviously dependant on how many files/size etc) so these figures don't really mean much. These are the upper and lower limits I have seen so far in reviews - Ok, Corsair 16GB non GT, as far as I can tell has READ 22MB/s, WRITE 7MB/s. I'm tempted to wait (as I have done for the last 2 months now) a little longer for the 16GB GT version to be reviewed further, but then the 32GB GT will be in the pipeline. Oh, woe. Thank you both for your input so far. Git, have you read this post http://www.houseofhelp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67417 Reinforces a couple of points... 1. The new "GT" line employs MLC...hence slower speeds 2. Results depend upon both the drive and the on-board controller. That guy's test results where about he same as what I've seen with the 16GB GT. :[pouts: Where did you find the speeds you've posted for the 16GB and 32GB non-GTs? It would be interesting to see what platforms they were tested on? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jensu Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 hi! i've bought a 16 GB GT the day before yesterday and i'm not satisfied with the results on my system. (core2duo @ 3.15 ghz, fsb 666, 2 gb ddr ram, asus p5w dh) max. read 22 mb/s max. write 8 mb/s any ideas? best jens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doogie Posted March 9, 2008 Author Share Posted March 9, 2008 hi! i've bought a 16 GB GT the day before yesterday and i'm not satisfied with the results on my system. (core2duo @ 3.15 ghz, fsb 666, 2 gb ddr ram, asus p5w dh) max. read 22 mb/s max. write 8 mb/s any ideas? best jens But, I'll need some more information...what file system are you using on the Voyager? What benchmark test did you use? (Corsair has been trying to get users to test their sticks with HD-Bench using 100MB transfer. My experience is that ATTO Benchmark is a bit more consistent and will give you a complete profile of transfer rates by file size). Who makes your on-board Enhanced Host Controller? (If you're not certain, the answer can be found in Device Manager under USB Controllers) and is the driver Windows native, or EHC specific? If it's specific, say Intel. try looking for updated drivers on their website. Please understand going into this, that it's unlikely that under even the best of circumstances, you'll see much better than 25MB/s Read and 12 MB/s Write...:o: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jensu Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 thanks doogie for reply! it's an intel 82801G (IHC7) USB Controller on my mainboard. i'll try to get the newest drivers, but i don't expect too much. i didn't change the fileformat of the voyager so it's still fat 32. and i've done the tests with hdbench (100mb), H2testw and by myself (copied file an stopped time). hd bench: read 22 mb/s write 8 mb/s h2testw: read 24 mb/s write 8 mb/s copied 100 mb in small pictures (about 2000): 59 seconds!!! = about 1,7 mb/s and i comparred to my older "blue" voyager 1gb: ther i've got about 18 mb/s for reading and 11 mb/s for writing. i didn't know about the changes regarding the flash type of corsair. i've bought the 16 gb GT "blind", i just had the times of the old GT series in mind: 2GBGT: Read 34MB/s Write 21MB/s 4GBGT: Read 34MB/s Write 25MB/s 8GBGT: Read 34MB/s Write 27MB/s the most online stores shows the same specs for the new 16 gb GT (Read 34MB/s Write 27MB/s). nobody expected that a new usb stick of the same production line with double of ram size will decrease in speed?! i've read in this forum that there is no more slc flash used in the bigger/newer models. i can understand the reasons, but than there should be an new name used, and not the "GT" which stoot for very fast tranferrates over the last 2 years. best jens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doogie Posted March 9, 2008 Author Share Posted March 9, 2008 thanks doogie for reply! it's an intel 82801G (IHC7) USB Controller on my mainboard. i'll try to get the newest drivers, but i don't expect too much. i didn't change the fileformat of the voyager so it's still fat 32. and i've done the tests with hdbench (100mb), H2testw and by myself (copied file an stopped time). hd bench: read 22 mb/s write 8 mb/s h2testw: read 24 mb/s write 8 mb/s copied 100 mb in small pictures (about 2000): 59 seconds!!! = about 1,7 mb/s and i comparred to my older "blue" voyager 1gb: ther i've got about 18 mb/s for reading and 11 mb/s for writing. i didn't know about the changes regarding the flash type of corsair. i've bought the 16 gb GT "blind", i just had the times of the old GT series in mind: 2GBGT: Read 34MB/s Write 21MB/s 4GBGT: Read 34MB/s Write 25MB/s 8GBGT: Read 34MB/s Write 27MB/s the most online stores shows the same specs for the new 16 gb GT (Read 34MB/s Write 27MB/s). nobody expected that a new usb stick of the same production line with double of ram size will decrease in speed?! i've read in this forum that there is no more slc flash used in the bigger/newer models. i can understand the reasons, but than there should be an new name used, and not the "GT" which stoot for very fast tranferrates over the last 2 years. best jens Hey Jens...I couldn't agree more! I tried to suggest to them that this business of changing what's inside without changing the name would cause disappointment, but if you've followed my post, you can see that has fallen on deaf ears! They say it's all about price, but I think those of us who buy "GTs" have come to expect more...:cool: By the way, that controller/drive combination could be doing better...check your version of the driver against what's posted here: http://www.radarsync.com/driver/d212170-intel_r_82801g_ich7_family_usb2_enhanced_host_controller_-_27cc Cheers, Doogie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Git, have you read this post http://www.houseofhelp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67417 Reinforces a couple of points... 1. The new "GT" line employs MLC...hence slower speeds 2. Results depend upon both the drive and the on-board controller. That guy's test results where about he same as what I've seen with the 16GB GT. :[pouts: Where did you find the speeds you've posted for the 16GB and 32GB non-GTs? It would be interesting to see what platforms they were tested on? :confused: Hi again Doogie, These speeds were a result of many wasted hours trawling, and just noted down without reference to where they were dug up. There are many more 8GB GT reviews out there than is good for one person to look at. I think I've decided on 32GB now as there doesn't seem to be that much speed increase (if any) with the 16gb GT, now just to find a reasonable supplier in the UK. For anyone's info: cclonline or ebuyer seem to come in at £111 give or take for the 32GB. Will give it a couple of weeks though while the news of 8GB and smaller drives being discontinued filters down to the retailers. And also to read through these forums to see if anything else comes up to make me change my mind. (That's right, Gits ma name) ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jensu Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 hi doogie! i've updated the drivers but no change. i've returned the stick today. i'll wait a bit and have a look around what's coming out after the cebit. and i'll check the specs carfully and read an user opinion the next time i'm buying a new usb stick, even the name is like it predecessors :) cheers jens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.