Jump to content
Corsair Community

16GB Flash Voyager - over 19% SLOWER than RAM GUY's speces


trades4usd

Recommended Posts

Back on 25 MAY 2008, I submitted an email to CORSAIR and received the following specs in a email reply from RAM GUY...

 

8GB NON-GT average sequential write speed is 3.3 MB/S and average read speed is 9.1 MB/s

 

16GB NON-GT average sequential write speed is 7.8 MB/S and average read speed is 29.9 MB/S

 

A couple of months later, in July, I bought my first Corsair, an 8GB Flash Voyager. I was so happy with its WRITE and READ speeds, both exceeding RAM GUY's specs, that today I bought my second Corsair, a 16GB Flash Voyager. Both are CMFUSB2.0 drives, NON-GT drives.

 

After formatting the 16GB drive to NTFS with 16K block size, as well as the 8GB drive, I conducted the following WRITE and READ tests:

 

WRITE

- file size ........ 6,834,887 KB = 6,674.7 MB = 6.52 GB

8GB Flash Voyager

- duration ......... 5:25:00 to 5:37:52 = 12m52s

- 8.64 MB/s average (very impressive)

16GB Flash Voyager

- duration ......... 5:41:00 to 5:58:40 = 17m40s

- 6.30 MB/s average (crap)

 

The new 16GB drive is 37.3% slower than a 4 month old 8GB drive.

It is also over 19.2% SLOWER than RAM GUY's specs.

 

I expected the new 16GB drive to meet or exceed RAM GUY's specs. It did not - WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT!!

 

READ

- file size ........ 6,834,887 KB = 6,674.7 MB = 6.52 GB

8GB Flash Voyager

- duration ......... 6:19:00 to 6:23:21 = 4m21s

- 25.57 MB/s average (very impressive)

8GB Flash Voyager

- duration ......... 6:24:15 to 6:28:39 = 4m24s for the 16 GB Flash Voyager

- 25.28 MB/s average (more crap)

 

The new 16GB drive is fractionally slower than the 8GB drive, just ove 1.1% slower.

However, this 16GB drive is over 15.5% SLOWER than RAM GUY's specs. ANOTHER HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT!!

 

What's the problem with my brand new 16GB Flash Voyager, RAM GUY?

 

Has anyone had similar probles with the 16GB Flash Voyager, the NON-GT version??

 

Thanks in advance,

 

T4USD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please try to format the drive from a command prompt with this syntax:

Format (X:) /FS:FAT32 /U (X=the drive letter assigned to the Flash Voyager) then try the HDBENCH v3.40 Beta 6 to test the performance. And please do a full format of the drive before you run the test and set it to 100 MB file size.

 

That's how they get the speeds they told you. Your tests are completely different, and as such, can give different results. Try the above and post the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's how they get the speeds they told you. Your tests are completely different, and as such, can give different results. Try the above and post the results.

 

Per your SUGGESTION, Wired, and ANSWERED as follows:

 

Running under Windows XP SP2 (with all available Microsoft Updates and or Hotfixes), less than five (5) minutes prior to executing the HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6 tests, both the 8GB and 16GB Corsair USB drives (once again) were formatted to NTFS with DEFAULT block size using the Command Prompt instructions "FORMAT H: /FS:NTFS" and "FORMAT I: /FS:NTFS" respectively (without quotes). The following text confirms their formats . . .

 

C:\>FORMAT H: /FS:NTFS

Insert new disk for drive H:

and press ENTER when ready...

The type of the file system is NTFS.

Verifying 7679M

Volume label (ENTER for none)? CORSAIR8

Creating file system structures.

Format complete.

7864288 KB total disk space.

7822464 KB are available.

 

C:\>FORMAT I: /FS:NTFS

Insert new disk for drive I:

and press ENTER when ready...

The type of the file system is NTFS.

Verifying 15423M

Volume label (ENTER for none)? CORSAIR16

Creating file system structures.

Format complete.

15794144 KB total disk space.

15727916 KB are available.

 

Running under Windows XP SP2 (with all available Microsoft Updates and or Hotfixes) and NO programs or other processes running in the foreground or background or loaded in memory, given HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6's 100MB setting, the test results include . . .

 

8BG Flash Voyager (non-GT version)

Read - 28116

Write - 4975

RandomRead - 30188

RandomWrite - 2108

 

16BG Flash Voyager (non-GT version)

- Read 30055

- Write 6833

- RandomRead 29784

- RandomWrite 1449

 

SUMMARY and ANALYSIS

Read - 8GB drive 6.5% slower than 16GB

Write - 8GB drive 27.2% slower than 16GB

RandomRead - 8GB drive 1.4% FASTER than 16GB

RandomWrite - 8GB drive 45.6% FASTER than 16GB

 

Let me REPEAT the last SUMMARY result . . . 8GB drive 45.6% FASTER than 16GB

 

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION

With the Corsair 8GB Flash Voyager RandomWrite test result TRUMPING the Corsair 16GB Flash Voyager by 45.6%, this engineer concludes that this 16GB USB drive SUCKS!!!

 

In addition, with no contiguous 100MB file to be found in the HDBENCH directory or ANYWHERE on my HDD, it seems reasonable to conclude that the HDBENCH test uses a reiterative or repeating file to achieve its 100MB size for this test. I know of NO REAL LIFE EXAMPLE where I would copy a program or data file OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again to achieve a similar result. It is equally reasonable to conclude that the HDBENCH test is TOTAL B.S. In contrast, my tests used a contiguous, non-fragmented 6.52 GB file that provided 100% REAL LIFE results that are 100% REALISTIC. Therefore, HDBENCH = TOTAL CRAP, in my opinion.

 

For REAL LIFE perspective, comparing a 4 month old Corsair 8GB Flash Voyager against a BRAND NEW Corsair 16GB Flash Voyager, my REAL LIFE test results are hereby reiterated below for emphasis . . .

 

READ

- file size ........ 6,834,887 KB = 6,674.7 MB = 6.52 GB

8GB Flash Voyager

- duration ......... 6:19:00 to 6:23:21 = 4m21s

- 25.57 MB/s average (very impressive)

8GB Flash Voyager

- duration ......... 6:24:15 to 6:28:39 = 4m24s for the 16 GB Flash Voyager

- 25.28 MB/s average (crap)

 

WRITE

- file size ........ 6,834,887 KB = 6,674.7 MB = 6.52 GB

8GB Flash Voyager

- duration ......... 5:25:00 to 5:37:52 = 12m52s

- 8.64 MB/s average (very impressive)

16GB Flash Voyager

- duration ......... 5:41:00 to 5:58:40 = 17m40s

- 6.30 MB/s average (more crap)

 

Given the HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6 result of 6833, which, if in KB/s, translates to 6.67 MB/s, it is almost 14.5% SLOWER than RAM GUY's 7.8 MB/s spec. And given my REAL LIFE test result comparison against a four (4) month old Corsair 8GB Flash Voyager, this new 16GB Flash Voyager is 37.3% SLOWER!!!

 

GENERAL CONCLUSION

 

Once again, I expected the new 16GB Corsair Flash Voyager to meet or exceed RAM GUY's specs, and in addition, it FAILED to perform at like or similar speeds, given REAL LIFE applications, compared to a four (4) month old 8GB Corsair Flash Voyager. WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT!!

 

This 16GB Flash Voyager CMFUSB2.0 drive FAILS!!!

 

What say you, Chun?

 

T4USD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trippple pppost!

keep in mind tech support is not open on the weekend.

 

hey, i dont want to agitate you as i see you are upset, however RG clearly documented formatting the drive with the FAT32 file system and the /U switch. You did not. you used NTFS and no switch.

if the drives are not prepared EXACTLY the same way of course the results are going to differ.

 

this isnt the first time ive seen you follow your own directions here and i hope once you follow RG's your results will be closer to the ones posted.

 

and if by chance your performance is not up to "par" -+ x% im sure they will RMA for you. these guys go out of there way to help people here and your satisfaction is their only goal.

 

again i do hope i havent added to your agitation and i am sorry if i did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trippple pppost!

keep in mind tech support is not open on the weekend.

 

hey, i dont want to agitate you as i see you are upset, however RG clearly documented formatting the drive with the FAT32 file system and the /U switch. You did not. you used NTFS and no switch.

if the drives are not prepared EXACTLY the same way of course the results are going to differ.

Extra posts removed. Please use the EDIT button next time.

 

Also, as Synthohol said (not to mention the scientific method), you'll need to run the tests with the drives formatted sa FAT32 if you wish to compare your tests with Corsair's tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trippple pppost!

keep in mind tech support is not open on the weekend.

 

hey, i dont want to agitate you as i see you are upset, however RG clearly documented formatting the drive with the FAT32 file system and the /U switch. You did not. you used NTFS and no switch.

if the drives are not prepared EXACTLY the same way of course the results are going to differ.

 

this isnt the first time ive seen you follow your own directions here and i hope once you follow RG's your results will be closer to the ones posted.

 

and if by chance your performance is not up to "par" -+ x% im sure they will RMA for you. these guys go out of there way to help people here and your satisfaction is their only goal.

 

again i do hope i havent added to your agitation and i am sorry if i did.

 

Thank you for, once again, highlighting my errors, Synthohol, because the 16GB results formatted at FAT32 are effectively worse than when formatted at NTFS. Specifically, the Write test is over 21.1% SLOWER than RAM GUY's spec. This latest test result, at FAT32, continues to support each and every test that I have conducted on the 16GB Flash Voyager USB drive thus far.

 

Before sharing the less than stellar 16GB FAT32 results, let's review the the /U switch application with the FORMAT command under Windows XP SP2, the operating system on my PC.

 

According to the Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] SP2 operating system loaded and updated to date on my PC, its FORMAT command syntax states . . .

 

C:\>FORMAT /?

 

Formats a disk for use with Windows XP.

 

FORMAT volume [/FS:file-system] [/V:label] [/Q] [/A:size] [/C] [/X]

FORMAT volume [/V:label] [/Q] [/F:size]

FORMAT volume [/V:label] [/Q] [/T:tracks /N:sectors]

FORMAT volume [/V:label] [/Q]

FORMAT volume [/Q]

 

volume ............... Specifies the drive letter (followed by a colon), mount point, or volume name

/FS:filesystem ..... Specifies the type of the file system (FAT, FAT32, or NTFS)

/V:label .............. Specifies the volume label

/Q ..................... Performs a quick format

/C ..................... NTFS only: Files created on the new volume will be compressed by default

/X ..................... Forces volume to dismount first if necessary - opened handles would no longer be valid

/A:size ............... Overrides default allocation unit size. Default setting strongly recommended for general use

NTFS ................. supports 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16K, 32K, 64K

FAT ................... supports 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16K, 32K, 64K, (128K, 256K for sector size > 512 bytes)

FAT32 ................ supports 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16K, 32K, 64K, (128K, 256K for sector size > 512 bytes)

 

FAT and FAT32 files systems impose the following restrictions on the number of clusters on a volume:

FAT: Number of clusters <= 65526

FAT32: 65526 < Number of clusters < 4177918

NTFS: compression is not supported for allocation unit sizes above 4096.

FORMAT will stop processing if it decides the above requirements cannot be met using the specified cluster size.

 

C:\>

 

Conclusion . . . there is no FORMAT /U switch.

 

Seeking additional verification, I consulted Microsoft where I conducted an Advanced Search for "FORMAT /U switch" without quotes for the product 'Windows XP Service Pack 2' at the Microsoft Help and Support website. This search resulted in the following response . . .

There are no documents that match your search for "FORMAT /U switch"

 

The above response may be verified here . . . http://support.microsoft.com/search/default.aspx?mode=a&query=FORMAT+%2FU+switch&spid=6794&catalog=LCID%3D1033&1033comm=1&res=20

 

Next, I conducted an Advanced Search for "FORMAT /U" without quotes, which resulted in essentially the SAME response . . .

There are no documents that match your search for "FORMAT /U"

 

Then, I conducted an Advanced Search for "/FS:FAT32 /U" without quotes, which resulted in essentially the SAME response . . .

There are no documents that match your search for "FS:FAT32 /U"

 

Last, I conducted an Advanced Search for "FAT32 /U" without quotes, which resulted in essentially the SAME response . . .

There are no documents that match your search for "FAT32 /U"

 

While I am familiar with /U switch use associated the REGSVR32 command and "uninstalling" registry entries in Windows XP SP2, it seems unlikely that this switch would perform the same function with the FORMAT command.

 

Given the apparent lack of support at Microsoft's Help and Support website associated with the /U format switch in Windows XP SP2, it appears to be an undefined or non-existent switch and therefore should not be used.

 

FAT32 FORMAT STATS

Correcting the format process from NTFS to FAT32 running under Windows XP SP2 (with all available Microsoft Updates and or Hotfixes), less than two (2) minutes prior to executing the HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6 tests, both the 8GB and 16GB Corsair USB drives (once again) were formatted to FAT32 with DEFAULT block size using the Command Prompt instructions "FORMAT H: /FS:FAT32" and "FORMAT I: /FS:FAT32" respectively (without quotes). The following text confirms their formats . . .

 

C:\>FORMAT H: /FS:FAT32

Insert new disk for drive H:

and press ENTER when ready...

The type of the file system is NTFS.

The new file system is FAT32.

Verifying 7679M

Initializing the File Allocation Table (FAT)...

Volume label (11 characters, ENTER for none)? CORSAIR8

Format complete.

7,848,940 KB total disk space.

7,848,936 KB are available.

 

4,096 bytes in each allocation unit.

1,962,234 allocation units available on disk.

 

32 bits in each FAT entry.

 

Volume Serial Number is E82E-4C8A

 

C:\>FORMAT I: /FS:FAT32

Insert new disk for drive I:

and press ENTER when ready...

The type of the file system is NTFS.

The new file system is FAT32.

Verifying 15423M

Initializing the File Allocation Table (FAT)...

Volume label (11 characters, ENTER for none)? CORSAIR16

Format complete.

15,778,712 KB total disk space.

15,778,704 KB are available.

 

8,192 bytes in each allocation unit.

1,972,338 allocation units available on disk.

 

32 bits in each FAT entry.

 

Volume Serial Number is 5011-2121

 

HDBENCH CHANGE LOG

Upon reviewing the Change Log at the HDBENCH website, it seems that both RandomRead and RandomWrite tests were added in the Beta 6 release. Given the propensity of HDBENCH corrections associated with previous Beta releases, it is reasonable to conclude that these two tests were never germane to RAM GUY's instructions nor were they ever associated with his tests for the 8GB and 16GB Corsair Flash Voyager USB drives because they did not exist until the Beta 6 release. Perhaps the /U switch is germane for Windows 2003 or some other operating system(s), but not Windows XP SP2. Therefore, I am omitting the results from the RandomRead and RandomWrite tests since their values appears superfluous at this time.

 

FAT32 TEST RESULTS

Running under Windows XP SP2 (with all available Microsoft Updates and or Hotfixes) and NO programs or other processes running in the foreground or background or loaded in memory, given HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6's 100MB setting, the test results include . . .

 

8BG Flash Voyager (non-GT version)

Read - 32120

Write - 7438

 

16BG Flash Voyager (non-GT version)

- Read 30331

- Write 6301

 

SUMMARY and ANALYSIS

Read - 8GB drive 5.9% FASTER than 16GB

Write - 8GB drive 18.0% FASTER than 16GB

 

Let me REPEAT the last SUMMARY result . . . 8GB drive 18.0% FASTER than 16GB

 

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION

The Corsair 8GB Flash Voyager Read and Write test results TRUMP the Corsair 16GB Flash Voyager by 5.9% and 18.0% respectively. Once again, this engineer concludes the brand new 16GB Corsair Flash Voyager USB drive that I purchased and continue to test, SUCKS!!!

 

As previously stated, with no contiguous 100MB file to be found in the HDBENCH directory or ANYWHERE on my HDD, it is reasonable to conclude that the HDBENCH test uses a reiterative or repeating file to achieve its 100MB size for this test. Again, I know of NO REAL LIFE EXAMPLE where I would copy a program or data file OVER and OVER and OVER again to achieve a similar result. It is equally reasonable to conclude that the HDBENCH test is TOTAL B.S. In contrast, my tests used a contiguous, non-fragmented 6.52 GB file that provided 100% REAL LIFE results that are 100% REALISTIC. Therefore, HDBENCH = COMPLETE CRAP, in my opinion.

 

Once again, for a REAL LIFE perspective, comparing a 4 month old Corsair 8GB Flash Voyager against a BRAND NEW Corsair 16GB Flash Voyager, my REAL LIFE test results are hereby reiterated below for emphasis . . .

 

READ

- file size 6,834,887 KB = 6,674.7 MB = 6.52 GB

8GB Flash Voyager

- duration 6:19:00 to 6:23:21 = 4m21s

- 25.57 MB/s average (very impressive)

8GB Flash Voyager

- duration 6:24:15 to 6:28:39 = 4m24s for the 16 GB Flash Voyager

- 25.28 MB/s average (crap)

 

WRITE

- file size 6,834,887 KB = 6,674.7 MB = 6.52 GB

8GB Flash Voyager

- duration 5:25:00 to 5:37:52 = 12m52s

- 8.64 MB/s average (very impressive)

16GB Flash Voyager

- duration 5:41:00 to 5:58:40 = 17m40s

- 6.30 MB/s average (more crap)

 

Given the HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6 result of 6301, which, if in KB/s, translates to 6.15 MB/s, it is over 21.1% SLOWER than RAM GUY's 7.8 MB/s spec. And given my REAL LIFE test result comparison against a four (4) month old Corsair 8GB Flash Voyager, this new 16GB Flash Voyager is 37.3% SLOWER!!!

 

GENERAL CONCLUSION

As previously stated, I expected the new 16GB Corsair Flash Voyager to meet or exceed RAM GUY's specs, and in addition, it FAILED to perform at like or similar speeds, given REAL LIFE applications, compared to a four (4) month old 8GB Corsair Flash Voyager.

 

WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT!!

 

What say you, Chun?

 

T4USD

 

P.S. I have no idea or reason why there was a "triple pppost" problem associated with my thread(s), but thanks for clearing it up, Wired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to show that I am a good sport, I ran the HDBENCH test after adding the "superfluous" /U to my FORMAT command under Windows XP SP2. The results represent the 3rd time that I have conducted HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6 tests on a 4 month old 8GB Flash Voyager and a brand new 16GB Flash Voyager.

 

FAT32 /U FORMAT STATS

Formatting 8GB and 16GB Corsair USB drives to FAT32 with default block size using the Command Prompt instructions "FORMAT H: /FS:FAT32 /U" and "FORMAT I: /FS:FAT32 /U" respectively (without quotes) confirmed as follows . . .

 

C:\>FORMAT H: /FS:FAT32 /U

Insert new disk for drive H:

and press ENTER when ready...

The type of the file system is FAT32.

Verifying 7679M

Initializing the File Allocation Table (FAT)...

Volume label (11 characters, ENTER for none)? CORSAIR8

Format complete.

7,848,940 KB total disk space.

7,848,936 KB are available.

 

4,096 bytes in each allocation unit.

1,962,234 allocation units available on disk.

 

32 bits in each FAT entry.

 

Volume Serial Number is C4D9-B4A9

 

C:\>FORMAT I: /FS:FAT32 /U

Insert new disk for drive I:

and press ENTER when ready...

The type of the file system is FAT32.

Verifying 15423M

Initializing the File Allocation Table (FAT)...

Volume label (11 characters, ENTER for none)? CORSAIR16

Format complete.

15,778,712 KB total disk space.

15,778,704 KB are available.

 

8,192 bytes in each allocation unit.

1,972,338 allocation units available on disk.

 

32 bits in each FAT entry.

 

Volume Serial Number is 3C82-4159

 

FAT32 /U TEST RESULTS

Running under Windows XP SP2 (with all available Microsoft Updates and or Hotfixes) and NO programs or other processes running in the foreground or background or loaded in memory, given HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6's 100MB setting, the test results include . . .

 

8BG Flash Voyager (non-GT version)

Read - 31960

Write - 7193

 

16BG Flash Voyager (non-GT version)

- Read 30331

- Write 6306

 

FAT32 /U SUMMARY and ANALYSIS

Read - 8GB drive 5.4% FASTER than 16GB

Write - 8GB drive 14.1% FASTER than 16GB

 

Let me REPEAT the last SUMMARY result . . . 8GB drive 14.1% FASTER than 16GB

 

FAT32 /U PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION

With the /U added to the FORMAT command, the Corsair 8GB Flash Voyager Read and Write test results continue to TRUMP the Corsair 16GB Flash Voyager, this time by 5.4% and 14.1% respectively. Once again, this engineer concludes the brand new 16GB Corsair Flash Voyager USB drive that I purchased and continue to test, SUCKS!!!

 

As previously stated, with no contiguous 100MB file to be found in the HDBENCH directory or ANYWHERE on my HDD, it is reasonable to conclude that the HDBENCH test uses a reiterative or repeating file to achieve its 100MB size for this test. Again, I know of NO REAL LIFE EXAMPLE where I would copy a program or data file OVER and OVER and OVER again to achieve a similar result. It is equally reasonable to conclude that the HDBENCH test is TOTAL B.S. In contrast, my tests used a contiguous, non-fragmented 6.52 GB file that provided 100% REAL LIFE results that are 100% REALISTIC. Therefore, HDBENCH = COMPLETE CRAP, in my opinion.

 

Once again, for a REAL LIFE perspective, comparing a 4 month old Corsair 8GB Flash Voyager against a BRAND NEW Corsair 16GB Flash Voyager, my REAL LIFE test results are hereby reiterated below for emphasis . . .

 

READ

- file size 6,834,887 KB = 6,674.7 MB = 6.52 GB

8GB Flash Voyager

- duration 6:19:00 to 6:23:21 = 4m21s

- 25.57 MB/s average (very impressive)

8GB Flash Voyager

- duration 6:24:15 to 6:28:39 = 4m24s for the 16 GB Flash Voyager

- 25.28 MB/s average (crap)

 

WRITE

- file size 6,834,887 KB = 6,674.7 MB = 6.52 GB

8GB Flash Voyager

- duration 5:25:00 to 5:37:52 = 12m52s

- 8.64 MB/s average (very impressive)

16GB Flash Voyager

- duration 5:41:00 to 5:58:40 = 17m40s

- 6.30 MB/s average (more crap)

 

With the /U added to the FORMAT command, given the HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6 result of 6306, which, if in KB/s, translates to 6.16 MB/s, it is over 21.0% SLOWER than RAM GUY's 7.8 MB/s spec. And given my REAL LIFE test result comparison against a four (4) month old Corsair 8GB Flash Voyager, this new 16GB Flash Voyager is 37.3% SLOWER!!!

 

FAT32 /U GENERAL CONCLUSION

As previously stated, I expected the new 16GB Corsair Flash Voyager to meet or exceed RAM GUY's specs, and in addition, it FAILED to perform at like or similar speeds, given REAL LIFE applications, compared to a four (4) month old 8GB Corsair Flash Voyager.

 

WHAT A FAT32 /U DISAPPOINTMENT!!

 

What say you, Chun?

 

T4USD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for, once again, highlighting my errors, Synthohol, because the 16GB results formatted at FAT32 are effectively worse than when formatted at NTFS. Specifically, the Write test is over 21.1% SLOWER than RAM GUY's spec. This latest test result, at FAT32, continues to support each and every test that I have conducted on the 16GB Flash Voyager USB drive thus far.

 

Before sharing the less than stellar 16GB FAT32 results, let's review the the /U switch application with the FORMAT command under Windows XP SP2, the operating system on my PC.

 

Conclusion . . . there is no FORMAT /U switch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_formatting

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/98181

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753867.aspx

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/835829

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490894.aspx

 

It's not documented within the format help info, but it is documented. Seems that it's a leftover command from the doskey command. Either way it's valid, as I just ran it on my 8GB Voyager (WinXP SP3).

 

Fill out the RMA form if you wish. http://www.corsair.com/helpdesk/

 

BTW, who's Chun? And out of curiosity, what's with the username?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

# FORMAT drive: /U [MS-DOS 5.00 and above ONLY]

 

FORMAT drive: /U performs an UNCONDITIONAL format, which DESTROYS every byte of data on ANY hard disk/floppy by overwriting it with zeroes (hex F6h).

WARNING: ANY disk(ette) formatted using /U canNOT be UNFORMATTED!

 

yep, it exists :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny why Microsoft's Help and Support website search engine produced ZERO hits when queried for the /U switch under 'Windows XP Service Pack 2' the operating system that runs my PC and millions of others globally.

 

However, as both Wired and Synthohol have CLEARLY illuminated, the /U switch is a DOS command.

 

Further investigation, specifically a phone call to a collegue whom is a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, confirms that "...while XP may utilize the doskey.exe application, typically located in the C:\WINDOWS\system32 directory, the /U switch is a not an XP format command line switch. It is, however, applicable under DOS operating systems between 5.0 and 6.22 versions."

 

Conclusion? Well, as I said, under Windows XP SP2, my operating system, the /U switch (as applied to formatting) is superfluous. YIPPEE!!! Got one RIGHT!!!

 

Regardless of whose RIGHT or WRONG on this /U switch issue, the RESULTS of my tests, WITH and WITHOUT the /U switch are CONCLUSIVE and REITERATED below for EMPHASIS . . .

 

WITHOUT THE /U SWITCH - - FAT32 TEST RESULTS

Running under Windows XP SP2 (with all available Microsoft Updates and or Hotfixes) and NO programs or other processes running in the foreground or background or loaded in memory, given HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6's 100MB setting, the test results include . . .

 

8BG Flash Voyager (non-GT version)

Read - 32120

Write - 7438

 

16BG Flash Voyager (non-GT version)

- Read 30331

- Write 6301

 

SUMMARY and ANALYSIS

Read - 8GB drive 5.9% FASTER than 16GB

Write - 8GB drive 18.0% FASTER than 16GB

 

Let me REPEAT the last SUMMARY result . . . 8GB drive 18.0% FASTER than 16GB

 

WITH THE /U SWITCH - - FAT32 TEST RESULTS

Running under Windows XP SP2 (with all available Microsoft Updates and or Hotfixes) and NO programs or other processes running in the foreground or background or loaded in memory, given HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6's 100MB setting, the test results include . . .

 

8BG Flash Voyager (non-GT version)

Read - 31960

Write - 7193

 

16BG Flash Voyager (non-GT version)

- Read 30331

- Write 6306

 

FAT32 /U SUMMARY and ANALYSIS

Read - 8GB drive 5.4% FASTER than 16GB

Write - 8GB drive 14.1% FASTER than 16GB

 

Let me REPEAT the last SUMMARY result . . . 8GB drive 14.1% FASTER than 16GB

 

/U SWITCH PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION

WITH or WITHOUT the /U switch added to the FORMAT command, the Corsair 8GB Flash Voyager test results continue to TRUMP the Corsair 16GB Flash Voyager by up to 18.0% FASTER Write speeds. And again, this engineer concludes the brand new 16GB Corsair Flash Voyager USB drive that I purchased and continue to test, SUCKS!!!

 

Furthermore, the HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6 result of 6306 reflects the /U switch added to the FORMAT command, which (as stated in my previous posts) translates to 6.16 MB/s, meaning it is over 21.0% SLOWER than RAM GUY's 7.8 MB/s spec.

 

Given my REAL LIFE test result comparison against a four (4) month old Corsair 8GB Flash Voyager, this new 16GB Flash Voyager is 37.3% SLOWER!!!

 

/U SWITCH CONCLUSION

Using the /U switch IMPROVED the 16GB Flash Voyager's HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6 WRITE TEST result from 1.65 MB/s or 21.1% SLOWER than RAM GUY's 7.8 MB/s spec to 1.64 MB/s or 21.0% SLOWER than RAM GUY's 7.8 MB/s spec. I now see why you both, Wired and Synthohol, place such EMPHASIS on the mandatory use of the /U switch - the difference is SIGNIFICANT at 0.01 MB/s or 0.1% - WOW!!!

 

As stated after EVERY test conduct thus far, I expected the new 16GB Corsair Flash Voyager to meet or exceed RAM GUY's specs, and in addition, it FAILED to perform at like or similar speeds, given REAL LIFE applications, compared to a four (4) month old 8GB Corsair Flash Voyager. WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT!!!

 

What say you, Chun?

 

T4USD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees
And doing a RMA for the record will likely not improve the performance much the controllers have changed and we had no choice and the current speed will be a bit less than before. However, we have never published a Spec or speed rating for our flash drives so I am not quite sure what would be gained.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me REVIEW THE FACTS in the following email, received from RAM GUY, just 6 months ago:

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ram Guy

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 4:44 PM

Subject: Re: CMFUSB2.0

 

Thank you for supporting our products. I am sorry you cannot find that information on our website, the write and read speeds might vary from system to system. Here are the specs for the 2 flash drives and yes they have different performance specs.

 

16GB NON-GT average sequential write speed is 7.8 MB/S and average read speed is 29.9 MB/S

 

8GB NON-GT average sequential write speed is 3.3 MB/S and average read speed is 9.1 MB/S

 

We test the flash drives with HDBench v3.4 with 100MB file.

 

Best regards,

Ram Guy

RamGuy@corsairmmemory.com

Corsair Memory Technical Support

Corsair Memory Inc.

Corsair Corporate Headquarters

46221 Landing Parkway.

Fremont, CA. 94538

(510) 657-8747

(510) 657-8748 Fax

800-205-7657 Toll Free

http://www.corsairmemory.com

http://www.asktheramguy.com

 

RAM GUY clearly STATES, average . . .

Write = 7.8 MB/S

Read = 29.9 MB/S

 

 

 

In ADDITION, let me share an email received from RAM GUY, less than a week ago:

 

----- Original Message -----

From: RAM GUY

Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 5:09 PM

Subject: RE: good sport - - FAT32 /U test results : BRAND NEW 16GB Flash Voyager 21.0% SLOWER than your specs

 

Dear Valued Customer,

 

We are sorry but the test results you have provided in the email are well within the spec. for our 16GB drive. Generally, the larger the drive is, the slower the drive is. The 16GB uses high density chips and the result will be slower write speed compare to lower density chips used on the 8GB drive.

 

Please let us know if you have any other question.

 

Best regards,

 

RAM GUY

Corsair Memory, Inc.

46221 Landing Parkway

Fremont, CA 94538

510-657-8747

ramguy@corsairmemory.com

 

Here, RAM GUY clearly STATES:

The 16GB uses high density chips and the result will be slower write speed compare to lower density chips used on the 8GB drive.

 

To this second email, I say . . . WHAT THE @$ (my characters, not Corsair's). If we are to believe this statement, then it is CLEAR that the Corsair 16GB Flash Voyager is CLEARLY INFERIOR to the Corsair 8GB Flash Voyager. Again, I say . . . WHAT THE @$ (again, my characters, not Corsair's).

 

 

 

Now, today I read, just over a day after receiving RAM GUY's email (noted above), that RAM GUY posts the following statement at 11-26-2008 05:23 PM (CST):

 

And doing a RMA for the record will likely not improve the performance much the controllers have changed and we had no choice and the current speed will be a bit less than before. However, we have never published a Spec or speed rating for our flash drives so I am not quite sure what would be gained.

 

To this STATEMENT, I say . . . HOW MUCH IS "...a bit less..." and I consider RAM GUY's reply on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 4:44 PM CST to be a PUBLISHED SPEC, given the reference found at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/PUBLISH

 

publish [puhb-lish]

-verb (used with object) 1. to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.

 

While I am CLEARLY in the "public" and was CLEARLY "issued" "printed" "textual" "material" in email form, I am not going to split hairs on this since the balance of the threads in this post speak ABUNDANTLY CLEAR regarding RAM GUY's statements that are now ON THE RECORD.

 

I must add that I was pleased when RAM GUY accepted the FACTS that I provided (in abundance) based on the apparently INEFFICIENT Corsair 16GB Flash Voyager given the DISTINCT test results from HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6 and was willing to issue an RMA.

 

Recognizing that I conducted each and every HDBENCH test within 48 hours after my 16GB purchase, it seemed LUDICROUS to process an RMA that would cost me $$$ to ship back to Corsair, and then wait, and wait, and wait for them to ship a "supposedly" new replacement back. Given the OBVIOUS WITHDRAWING of the FACTS that RAM GUY, based on RAM GUY's email replies and subsequent posts, I certainly was NOT going to spend MORE of my MONEY to get "...SLOWER WRITE SPEED..." THAN "...THE 8GB DRIVE."

 

Saving RMA fees, it went back to the retailer (and now it will COST Corsair, likely, less to process, IMO, a SERIOUSLY DEFECTIVE 16GB Flash Voyager.

 

 

 

While it may appear that my initial 16GB Flash Voyager experience turned me into a Corsair antagonist, it has not - primarily due to my 8GB Flash Voyager experience. As a result, keeping things in proportion, I elected to purchase another 16GB Flash Voyager.

 

My second Corsair 16GB Flash Voyager (non-GT version) reports the following HDBENCH 3.40 Beta 6 test results...

 

Formatted to FAT32 at the default allocation unit of 8192, the HDBENCH 3.40 BETA 6 test results include:

 

READ = 31801 = 31.06 MB/s (assuming HDBENCH results are expressed in KB)

WRITE = 8444 = 8.25 MB/s (assuming HDBENCH results are expressed in KB)

 

Note: this second Corsair 16GB Flash Voyager's READ and WRITE results BOTH EXCEED RAM GUY's stated averages of 29.9 MB/S and 7.8 MB/S respectively.

 

In addition, I successfully transferred a 1,704,248 KB = 1,664.3 MB file in 198 sec = 8.41 MB/s (a REAL WORLD result).

 

All tests included the /U format switch (superfluous, IMO, specifically for Windows XP SP2 users) and the "Optimize for peformance" setting found in Device Manager / Disk drives / Corsair Flash Voyager USB Device Properties / Policies.

 

 

 

As a Corsair USB drive owner, while I have COMPLETE DISDAIN for RAM GUY's email reply of Tuesday, November 25, 2008 5:09 PM CDT, and given RAM GUY's posted statement at 11-26-2008 05:23 PM (CST), as a USB drive consumer (in the public), until Corsair returns to producing HIGH QUALITY drives (where LARGER CAPACITY drives ARE faster than their LOWER CAPACITY drives) because THEY CHOOSE to improve the performance of their controllers, my second 16GB Flash Voyager (and second Corsair USB drive) will be the LAST Corsair product that I or any of my 1500+ clients purchase.

 

Publicly, we cannot continue doing business with a company or companies that either misrepresent their specs, or retract their statements, published or specified in email, or who(m) try to placate their customers with generalalities and obfuscations like "...RMA for the record will likely not improve the performance much the controllers have changed and we had no choice and the current speed will be a bit less than before. However, we have never published a Spec or speed rating for our flash drives so I am not quite sure what would be gained." WHAT AN INSULT TO CORSAIR FLASH VOYAGER USB DRIVE OWNERS!!!

 

Regretfully,

 

T4USD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees
I am sorry but I have addressed all of this on other posts I think it would be best if you call in and talk to our customer service tomorrow after 8:00 AM Pacific Time and I am sure they will help you. Please call them at 888-222-4346 or 510-657-8747 Ext "0" and ask for a supervisor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RAM GUY states, "I am sorry but I have addressed all of this on other posts I think it would be best if you call in and talk to our customer service tomorrow after 8:00 AM Pacific Time and I am sure they will help you. Please call them at 888-222-4346 or 510-657-8747 Ext "0" and ask for a supervisor."

 

RAM GUY states, "...doing a RMA for the record will likely not improve the performance much the controllers have changed and we had no choice and the current speed will be a bit less than before. However, we have never published a Spec or speed rating for our flash drives so I am not quite sure what would be gained."

 

"...not quite sure what would be gained?" How about CUSTOMER LOYALTY???

 

Regretfully,

 

T4USD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees
I am not sure where you are trying to go with this but there is little I can add so please call and talk to our customer service as I stated that is not a technical issue and as such one I cannot address. However, that is what our customer service is for and I am sure they will do their best to rectify that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...