External drive bottlenecked by USB port?

[Nena Trinity]

Ok the drive was marked USB 3.0 on the store page, ok I put it into a USB 3.0 port... It performed like total crap(Rainbow Six Siege) , ok I tried to plug it into a 3.1 Type A port I could be imagining it but it seems to have gotten slightly less bad but still bad... Ok I read on the specs page of Western Digital and this darn thing uses USB 3.2 Gen 1 ok wtf happened to it being a 3.0 and what kinda bottling can I expect while using it on a 3.1 Type A port rather than 3.2 Gen 1?!!

[WereCatf]

2 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

USB 3.2 Gen 1

That is still USB 3.0, just with the new name. Yes, the certification-body behind USB went and made a confusing naming-scheme and decided to rename the old ones as well.

 

As for the drive, since you're not giving any information about it, there's nothing I can say about it.

[Eigenvektor]

2 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

Ok I read on the specs page of Western Digital and this darn thing uses USB 3.2 Gen 1 ok wtf happened to it being a 3.0 …

Blame the USB consortium for renaming things.

 

"USB 3.0", "USB 3.1 Gen 1" or "USB 3.2 Gen 1" are the same (5 Gbps)

"USB 3.1", "USB 3.1 Gen 2" or "USB 3.2 Gen 2" are the same (10 Gbps)

"USB 3.2" or "USB 3.2 Gen 2x2" are the same (20 Gbps)

 

What type of drive is it and what's the speed you're getting? Because "it performed like crap" isn't much to go on.

[Nena Trinity]

2 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Blame the USB consortium for renaming things.

 

"USB 3.0", "USB 3.1 Gen 1" or "USB 3.2 Gen 1" are the same (5 Gbps)

"USB 3.1", "USB 3.1 Gen 2" or "USB 3.2 Gen 2" are the same (10 Gbps)

"USB 3.2" or "USB 3.2 Gen 2x2" are the same (20 Gbps)

 

What type of drive is it and what's the speed you're getting? Because "it performed like crap" isn't much to go on.

Western Digital 2.5" HDD i suspect if it's a better port on the PC or same it will at the very least be able to max it... OwO 

[SupaKomputa]

What WD drive? SSD or HDD?

If HDD it won't saturate even a Gen 1, the drive can only push 2-3 gbps anyway.

So to answer your question, no the usb didn't bottleneck the drive.

Only if you put the wrong cable (usb2) then it will have usb2 speed (480mbps).

And anyway, don't game from the external drive, it's silly.

[WereCatf]

1 minute ago, Nena360 said:

Western Digital 2.5" HDD i suspect if it's a better port on the PC or same it will at the very least be able to max it... OwO 

An HDD is never going to get particularly good speeds; you'd be lucky to get even 100MB/s. Also, again, since you're not saying the specific model, there's not much to go on with. The HDD could be just a 4200RPM one, for example, which would make it even slower.

[Eigenvektor]

3 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

Western Digital 2.5" HDD i suspect if it's a better port on the PC or same it will at the very least be able to max it... OwO 

Since it's a HDD I would expect that to bottleneck the USB port rather than the other way around

 

USB 3.0 should be able to do 5 Gbps (625 MB/s), while most HDDs (7200 rpm) will be somewhere around 80-160 MB/s read speed.

[WereCatf]

1 minute ago, Eigenvektor said:

USB 3.0 should be able to do 5 Gbps (625 MB/s), while most HDDs (7200 rpm) will be somewhere around 80-160 MB/s read speed.

External USB-drives, especially 2.5" ones, often run at just 4200RPM.

[Eigenvektor]

Just now, WereCatf said:

External USB-drives, especially 2.5" ones, often run at just 4200RPM.

Yes. My point was that a HDD (even at 7200 RPM) is only 80-160 MB/s. A 4200 RPM one is going to be even slower. So I don't think the USB port is the issue here.

[Nena Trinity]

1 minute ago, WereCatf said:

External USB-drives, especially 2.5" ones, often run at just 4200RPM.

I think it was 5200rpm or so... Exact model was named WD my Passport... 

[Nena Trinity]

Just now, Eigenvektor said:

Yes. My point was that a HDD (even at 7200 RPM) is only 80-160 MB/s. A 4200 RPM one is going to be even slower. So I don't think the USB port is the issue here.

Yeah good, then it's just a slowpoke drive, but how come it feels faster in the 3.1 type a expansion card from ASRock? If it cannot even do 3.0 speeds good... 

[Nena Trinity]

Blame the USB consortium for renaming things.

 

"USB 3.0", "USB 3.1 Gen 1" or "USB 3.2 Gen 1" are the same (5 Gbps)

"USB 3.1", "USB 3.1 Gen 2" or "USB 3.2 Gen 2" are the same (10 Gbps)

"USB 3.2" or "USB 3.2 Gen 2x2" are the same (20 Gbps)

 

Is this justification for calling for them to be genocided on Twitter?

[WereCatf]

Just now, Nena360 said:

If it cannot even do 3.0 speeds good

USB 3.1 Gen 1 == USB 3.0. Also, USB 3.0 can do around 540MB/s -- your HDD is never going to get anywhere near that speed.

[Eigenvektor]

3 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

Yeah good, then it's just a slowpoke drive, but how come it feels faster in the 3.1 type a expansion card from ASRock? If it cannot even do 3.0 speeds good... 

I'd use something like CrystalDiskMark to check. This is more reliable than subjective feelings.

 

Could also be the integrated USB controller is just crap, which could explain why the expansion card is faster (because the other one isn't actually running at 3.0 speeds)

[Nena Trinity]

2 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

I'd use something like CrystalDiskMark to check. This is more reliable than subjective feelings.

 

Could also be the integrated USB controller is just crap, which could explain why the expansion card is faster (because the other one isn't actually running at 3.0 speeds)

Does budget MSI boards often have crap USB controllers?

[Eigenvektor]

24 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

Does budget MSI boards often have crap USB controllers?

No idea Just saying it's also a possibility.