Poor performance on USB 3.0 128GB USB stick

[AstroBenny]

Hi,

I just bought a 128GB USB 3.0 Kingston Datatraveler SE9 G2 Memory stick and I've just tested it in Crystadiskmark and was wondering if these results are normal??

cheers.

[comicsansms]

I think you are benchmarking the wrong drive, that drive you have listed was 32GB and not 128GB

[AstroBenny]

1 minute ago, Comic_Sans_MS said:

I think you are benchmarking the wrong drive, that drive you have listed was 32GB and not 128GB

Hmm strange.

I only have two drives in my system and drive D is the 128GB USB stick.

The only other drive is my WD 1tb Black.

I have no idea why it's reporting as 32GiB

[manikyath]

5 minutes ago, AstroBenny said:

Hmm strange.

I only have two drives in my system and drive D is the 128GB USB stick.

The only other drive is my WD 1tb Black.

I have no idea why it's reporting as 32GiB

you *did* buy an official kingston stick right? kingston is a popular brand in the world of knockoffs.

EDIT: i went to check on a local retailer's website, those speeds seem to be as advertised. make sure you got the right storage space model.

[Mew]

That seems about right for a typical USB 3.0 flash drive. What are the rated speeds? 

[AstroBenny]

7 hours ago, manikyath said:

you *did* buy an official kingston stick right? kingston is a popular brand in the world of knockoffs.

EDIT: i went to check on a local retailer's website, those speeds seem to be as advertised. make sure you got the right storage space model.

I bought direct from Amazon and the box says 128GB

Windows reports the drive as 128GB under all circumstances.

 

But then Crystaldiskmark comes along and decides otherwise

[Deli]

The speed is about right for that Kingston USB stick. I have the 32GB model. It labelled USB 3.0 doesn't automatically mean it will have 300MB/s transfer speed.

[manikyath]

5 minutes ago, AstroBenny said:

I bought direct from Amazon and the box says 128GB

Windows reports the drive as 128GB under all circumstances.

 

But then Crystaldiskmark comes along and decides otherwise

do you still have said amazon link?
theres tons of shady stuff on amazon.

[AstroBenny]

8 hours ago, manikyath said:

 

I actually purchased it using the Amazon Prime now app because I could get 2hr delivery. Amazon have confirmed that their Prime Now stock is sold and fulfilled exclusively by Amazon.

Here is the weblink though: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B00U88FV0S/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?qid=1454343457&sr=8-4&pi=AC_SX118_SY170&keywords=se9+g2&dpPl=1&dpID=313d1QR%2BB0L&ref=plSrch

[manikyath]

9 minutes ago, AstroBenny said:

I actually purchased it using the Amazon Prime now app because I could get 2hr delivery. Amazon have confirmed that their Prime Now stock is sold and fulfilled exclusively by Amazon.

Here is the weblink though: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B00U88FV0S/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?qid=1454343457&sr=8-4&pi=AC_SX118_SY170&keywords=se9+g2&dpPl=1&dpID=313d1QR%2BB0L&ref=plSrch

yeah.. you dont happen to have something to toss on there thats more than 32GB right? you could do something like installing a big game on it and see if it runs properly.

[AstroBenny]

Just now, manikyath said:

yeah.. you dont happen to have something to toss on there thats more than 32GB right? you could do something like installing a big game on it and see if it runs properly.

I think I've found the problem...

How exactly do I use all of it?

[manikyath]

Just now, AstroBenny said:

I think I've found the problem...

How exactly do I use all of it?

 

if windows can do that, by extending the partition, otherwise you're gonna have to delete the partition and make a new one.

[AstroBenny]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

if windows can do that, by extending the partition, otherwise you're gonna have to delete the partition and make a new one.

How exactly do I just make a new one?

Formatting it still leaves 85.22GB Unallocated

[manikyath]

Just now, AstroBenny said:

How exactly do I just make a new one?

Formatting it still leaves 85.22GB Unallocated

in disk management delete partition (so you have 120GB unallocated) then new.

[AstroBenny]

10 minutes ago, manikyath said:

in disk management delete partition (so you have 120GB unallocated) then new.

It won't let me..

When I right click on the active partition, the extend, shrink, and delete volume options are greyed out.

When I right click the unallocated section, the new simple, spanned,and striped Volume options are greyed out...

[manikyath]

3 minutes ago, AstroBenny said:

It won't let me..

When I right click on the active partition, the extend, shrink, and delete volume options are greyed out.

When I right click the unallocated section, the new simple, spanned,and striped Volume options are greyed out...

its probably something small i'm missing, but i really dont have the kind of day today where i want to dig into finding out whats going on here.

if no one else chimes in i'll look into it a bit more tomorrow.

[AstroBenny]

18 minutes ago, manikyath said:

its probably something small i'm missing, but i really dont have the kind of day today where i want to dig into finding out whats going on here.

if no one else chimes in i'll look into it a bit more tomorrow.

Fixed it. I found some guide on how to force delete all partitions using CMD.

However, now I only get the option to format as NTFS or exFAT.

The original default was FAT32 I think.

So, FINALLY,! 

Which should I use? NTFS or exFAT..?

Thanks.

[bydus]

3 minutes ago, AstroBenny said:

Fixed it. I found some guide on how to force delete all partitions using CMD.

However, now I only get the option to format as NTFS or exFAT.

The original default was FAT32 I think.

So, FINALLY,! 

Which should I use? NTFS or exFAT..?

Thanks.

use NTFS - i think its faster and you can copy files over 4gb, if i remember correctly fat32 had a limit of 3.8gb or something like that. Never used exFAT but I remember it being related to UNIX or Linux. NTFS is your best bet , FAT and FAT32 is old

[AstroBenny]

7 minutes ago, bydus said:

use NTFS - i think its faster and you can copy files over 4gb, if i remember correctly fat32 had a limit of 3.8gb or something like that. Never used exFAT but I remember it being related to UNIX or Linux. NTFS is your best bet , FAT and FAT32 is old

Cheers. But why did the drive originally come formatted as FAT32?

[bydus]

not sure, ntfs is supported from windows xp onwards. I've read linux had problem supporting ntfs for years and some older TVs /dvd players etc don't support ntfs so going fat32 is safer i guess. 

[AstroBenny]

Just now, bydus said:

not sure, ntfs is supported from windows xp onwards. I've read linux had problem supporting ntfs for years and some older TVs /dvd players etc don't support ntfs so going fat32 is safer i guess. 

But I thought a drive over 32GB can't technically exist as FAT32..

[Mikensan]

I'm pretty certain back in the XP days you could have an 80gb FAT32 drive, I just think it is windows limiting you to 32gb when FAT32 is detected. FAT32 used to be the defacto for removable media to make sure it worked between Win/Mac/Linux.

 

Anywho your read/write speeds are on the money. You'll notice it fluctuate depending on how many files you're transferring.