Jump to content
Corsair Community

16GB Voyager GT is a DOG!


Speedy1

Recommended Posts

I don't get it? I read all these reviews about how fast the Voyager GTs are, so I shell out some extra cash for a "GT" and what I end up with is something that's slower than my old blue 4GB Voyager??? :mad:

I thought that you guys were the performance leaders? What have you done to the GT?

I'm getting just 22MB/s reading and 9MB/s writting...this thing is a dawg! I read your sticky entitiled "Flash Reviews" and it linked me to reviews more than a year old where the regular non-GT Voyagers were writting at speeds of more than 13MB/s...I was dumb enough to believe that the new "GT" I ordered would blow that away...WRONG!

Then I read on your posts that you dumbed down the new "GT" with MLC...Gee, do you think that is written anywhere on the blisterpack...no! I bought the "GT" for SPEED and I got bushwacked!

What does the "GT" stand for..."Got Taken"

I would happily trade my 16GB GT for an 8GB GT with SLC...I'd loose half the capacity, but at least I'd get the speed that I "thought" I had paid for...:mad:

I mean it...I'll trade what you sold me for the real thing even if it's half the size! :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a bit low for the 16 Gig GT should be about 30 MBPs read and 13 MBps write. I would suggest we get it replaced. But what were you using to to test the drive? Should be using HD Bench.

 

It was HD-Bench with 100MB transfer...as you've suggested in the other posts! By the way you say to me that the writting speed should be about 13MB/s...yet, in tone20's post you say it should be 16MB/s...I guess it is easier to move the target to fit the situation when you don't post performance data :roll:

 

I don't think you understand at all! I don't want to trade one piece of @#$* for another one. I bought the "GT" because I want SPEED not mediocre performance!

 

I just finished reading the post by "tone20"...for a company that prides itself on performance, you guys are really out-of-touch with the market. I noticed that you keep saying that you "don't post performance data..". But what you actually do is post links to CLEARLY OUT OF DATE performance data on the SLC drives...what's the point if SLC isn't available anymore??? ;):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees

The performance of the 16 Gig GT FV will be about 13-16 MBPs Write that is correct and as I said if you drive is not performing at that then we would want to get it replaced. However, the performance may vary from system to system so if its with in a few MBps then it may be the system and not the FV.

If you are not happy with it by all means talk to your reseller and see what they can do. I do understand but from a support side this is the best I can offer. Sorry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Speedy1...sorry that you fell into the "Flash Reviews" trap! Corsair just keeps those links on their forum as a tribute to history ;): unfortunately, it too often gives people the impression their "GT" drives are exceptionally fast...that used to be true; however, they decided that cheap was better than fast and have removed all SLC based drives from the market....after all Dude, THEY know what you really want and you're just too dumb to undertstand that! ;):
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees

Doogie

You are not helping and all of your posts will be moderated.

You are miss leading people by your comments we did not slow the drives down because of cost. To make a 16 Gig drive it would have to be MLC. SLC technology will not support a higher density than 8 Gig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd put my .02 in.

 

My 16gb voyager GT beats the performance of 8gb voyager GT drive and also exceeds that of my 16gb Voyager non GT by even more margin. It is by far the fastest flash drive that I own. I am completely satisfied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I participate on some other product boards and I think people forget that a few complaints do not an epidemic make.

 

The largest reason to post on a board like this is to resolve problems. I think that if everyone who was happy with your product posted every time they plugged it in an it worked, the board would be very boring but only then would it be an accurate indicator of product quality.

 

It seems to me that if there is a problem, you provide remedys.

 

I should also add that I paid only 109.00 for my new 16gb gt drive at New Egg. I paid 139.00 (discounted from 179.00) for the nonGT 16gb drive at Amazon last december. My experience is that the GT drive is better, as you say but it is also cheaper. Now I suppose I could complain that you took advantage of my impatience in december and sold me something that did less for more money, but that would not be fair. I know that consumer electronic products get cheaper and better. I needed that drive in December and I need this one in March. That's how it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I participate on some other product boards and I think people forget that a few complaints do not an epidemic make. [/Quote]

 

 

...and presuming you understand that if both drives operate correctly, it would not be possible for a 16gb voyager GT to beat the performance of 8gb voyager GT...a single "naive" user doesn't account for anything! LOL :laughing:

 

Right on Doogie! ;):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, I'm not kidding. I'm also not naive. I've worked in the computer systems business for over 30 years.

 

I am very curious to know why you don't think a 16gb gt voyager can out perform an 8gb gt voyager. What exactly is your theory on that?

 

Dollar for value, the 16gb gt voyager is the best drive that I have.

 

And, I'm not upset about the lower price of it at all either.

 

You can be as sour as you like, I'm very happy with this product. It is interesting that you try to discredit me with innuendo and insult merely because I refute your claims and statements.

 

And just to get that out of the way, I have no remunerative relationship with Corsair or any Corsair employees. I just really like their products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, I'm not kidding. I'm also not naive. I've worked in the computer systems business for over 30 years.

 

I am very curious to know why you don't think a 16gb gt voyager can out perform an 8gb gt voyager. What exactly is your theory on that?

Dude, figure it out...the 8GB GT's used Single Layer Cell controllers (aka "SLC") and the 16GB GT's use the slower Multi-Layer Cell controllers (aka "MLC"). Nobody disputes this...unless they're naive to the facts :roll:

Dollar for value, the 16gb gt voyager is the best drive that I have.

 

And, I'm not upset about the lower price of it at all either.

 

You can be as sour as you like, I'm very happy with this product. It is interesting that you try to discredit me with innuendo and insult merely because I refute your claims and statements.

 

And just to get that out of the way, I have no remunerative relationship with Corsair or any Corsair employees. I just really like their products.

Yeah, they're sooo special...LOL :laughing:

 

 

You gotta be the same "Geofferyf" that posted the link to the press release where Corsair touts their new drives and then gives performance data without indicting if the speeds are "read" or "write"...and you were impressed...LOL :laughing: Doogie nailed you on that one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have to post a bunch of numbers. It's enough to say that I'm happy and I disagree with you. Whatever numbers I posted would be as silly as your numbers since there is no provenance in either case.

 

As for your theory, different technologies chase each other all the time. Whereas one of them might be inferior and work better in one year, this may not be so in another. Anyway, your reasoning appears circular because you assume that the drive has "Bad technology" because you have "determined" that it has "Bad performance". Years and years ago, in the very early PC business, DRAM had a bad name and products were promoted with "100% Static Ram", like this was a benefit. At one time, SRAM was more reliable and faster but those days are gone. The differences between MLC and SLC may ultimately prove similar. As I said, I don't care which is used as long as the performance is achieved. It is working great for me and I'm not in the business of designing flash drives only using them.

 

Corsair has offered to replace the drive with numbers inferior to what they expect. I expect that they will replace it with one like mine. If you are honest, you might even then admit that you are satisfied, but then your self important rant would be over and you would be a "mere happy customer". That's enough for me but obviously you like to puff yourself up and put down, not only this vendor but their happy customers as well.

 

So why are you so attached to being rude to someone who likes the product? It seems that complaining and being obnoxious is that you "value" not getting a high performance flash drive like the one I have.

 

Anyway, to those who simply are sitting on the side lines, why should you believe "technical information" from someone who so quickly descends to self important insults and innuendo? Go buy the device from someone with a good return policy like new egg and see for yourself if this is a great drive or not. Personally, I'm sure you will be happy with the result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not want to flame around because the 16GB GT I ordered 2 days ago will not be as fast as the 8GB version that is half the size and also costs 20$ more. I also know that MLC will not be as fast as SLC, as long as there is not such a huge difference. Lets compare the values I know from the 8GB GT:

 

Sequential Read: 34MB/s

Sequential Write: 27MB/s (at least every online shop says that)

 

Read latency: fast enough (as every flash product)

Write latency: 25ms (testet with Sisoft Sandra: http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/peripherie/2007/test_usb-stick-roundup/7/#abschnitt_sisoft_sandra_%20_datentraegertest

 

Random Read with 4KB blocks: about 7MB/s: http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/peripherie/2007/test_usb-stick-roundup/9/#abschnitt_windows_geschwindigkeitstest

This is also not the problem with flash drives

 

Random Write with 512KB blocks: about 17MB/s: (see link above)

This is also very fast and a good reason to buy the stick.

 

I thought if the new GT has at least 70% the performance of the 8GB GT it would be worth buying, but now I see:

 

Write speed: Sometimes around 12MB/s, sometimes around 10MB/s or lower. So I have to wait nearly 10 minutes to copy a DVD image on the stick. This is slower than burning it and for 80Euros I can burn 400 dvds.

 

Random write: I saw a benchmark at http://www.hardwareluxx.com with the Survivor GT, that has only about 2MB/s. I dont know what block size was used, but with my hard drive I get about half of the seqeuential write so I think it should be around 512KB/s. Is there really such a bug difference between MLC and SLC? It would be nice if somebody could give me a link to the HDBench values of the old 8GB GT and 16GB GT.

 

As I said before I know that this stick is not as fast as the 8GB GT, but if it is only a poor mainstream stick, then for what reason should I buy it if I can get the not much slower 16GB non GT for 30 Euros less or another 32GB stick for 30 Euros more that is also rated at 30/15 MB/s, so it should reach at least half of that and this would be enough for me to buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Everyone,

 

Just purchased a 16GB GT, only to face a bitter disappointment.

 

Writing is unbelievably slow.

A 1GB mp3 directory, will require next to 11 minutes to write, a few seconds to read and a jiffy to delete.

 

In fact, GT proves to be very much slower than my legacy Transcend 512MB. The speed gets comparable only when formatted in FAT32 (still a bit worse). But there is no much use for a 16GB stick with no NTFS, is there? No DVD images, no Acronis backups, nothing....

 

So I compared it to an 8GB GT (NTFS format). For the same folder the 8GB needed 1 minute, 16GB took its time. About 9 minutes!?

 

I really am not a speed freak or a perfectionist. I would settle for a red stick just noticeably faster than the blue ones. But this is next to useless.

 

So is the specific GT among others mentioned with the same problem? Does it have a faulty write controller so I need to get it replaced, or all GTs perform like that (under NTFS I stress again)?

 

Plus, while opening the blister I totally destroyed it. There is no box number for an RMA. I hope the retailer will accept it back, along with the printout of Corsair's offer to refund 16GB GT's purchased until March 30.

 

Paid 90 Euros for it (about 140 USD).

 

Thanks in advance,

 

PanLask

 

Thessaloniki, Central Macedonia, Greece

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Downloaded 3.30 HDbench.

 

100MB Read Write Copy

Transcend 512 7.8K 5.3K 0.6K

Corsair 16GT 26.9K 7.2K 6.9K

 

 

1MB Read Write Copy

Transcend 512 8.1K 3.2K 0.6K

Corsair 16GT 31.1K 1.9K 6.4K

 

See what I mean? Write speed is unacceptable. In directories with smaller files things get really sluggish!

 

In fact, the first few seconds show better throughput but then things slow down.

 

Panlask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...