Printable View
OK, Oleg, thanks for the warning. Maybe APACER is too fast to work properly with WL-500b/g. I prefer the reliability over speed anway so I hope the PQI selection (based on Antiloop's report in RCH forum) was not a big mistake. If the performance will be too slow, I will return it to supplier again... ;)
hehe it's a usb2.0 device.. so speed won't be slow i guess..Quote:
Originally posted by Technik
OK, Oleg, thanks for the warning. Maybe APACER is too fast to work properly with WL-500b/g. I prefer the reliability over speed anway so I hope the PQI selection (based on Antiloop's report in RCH forum) was not a big mistake. If the performance will be too slow, I will return it to supplier again... ;)
never really tested..
how much bandwidth has usb1.1 anyway?
The problem with PQI write performance is not the interface speed, but the flash speed. That's the russian review of the drives - http://www.ixbt.com/storage/flashdri...d-xdrive.shtml
There are 3 graphs at the end - the first one is the access time in ms (lower is better), the next one is the read performance (higher is better) and the later is the write performance (KBytes/s).
All are using USB 2.0.
As for USB 1.1 - the bandwidth is something near 1 Mbytes/s.
Well, I think the flash disk speed can also depend on the flash capacity. There could be also some hardware design changes between various models of the same manufacturer so we should not judge the manufacturer pursuant to one specific model test. We should compare all product ranges I think but it's not possible to test all devices over the world... Anyway, thanks for the link to test - it's interresting to see the differencies and it can help to somebody who want to buy some of listed models.