When will USB 3.0 flash drives be the no brainer choice?

[tracerit]

I'm looking into picking up a 16GB USB flash drive but with USB 3.0 around the corner I just wanted to know if i should just pick up an inexpensive 8GB usb2.0 drive now and get a 16gb usb 3.0 in the future.

 

[dac7nco]

USB 3.0 isn't around the corner... just buy a 3.0 drive (it works with 2.0 ports). USB 2.0 has always been painful.

 

[tracerit]

my laptop only has USB 2.0, will a USB3 drive be any faster than a USB2 drive when connected to a USB2 port?

 

[dac7nco]

No, the drive won't be faster - do you have an available expresscard slot?

 

[capeconsultant]

If USB 2.0 was painful, what was USB 1.0?

 

[Rifter]

USB 3 is here now, not around the corner. From here on out buying USB 2 devices is not a smart move since 3 is backwards compatable. Im slowly selling off my USB 2 external drives and moving to USB 3.

 

[dac7nco]

If USB 2.0 was painful, what was USB 1.0?

At the time of USB 1.0, Everyone used those awful fucking Zip discs... look at one funny and it died - Seagate probably hired all of Iomega's engineers.

 

[WildW]

my laptop only has USB 2.0, will a USB3 drive be any faster than a USB2 drive when connected to a USB2 port?

I think this is a better question than it's been given credit for.

In my experience of USB memory sticks they are dog slow compared to a hard disk connected to the same USB port. I'm not sure exactly how fast I've seen my USB sticks running, but I can copy to/from a USB2 hard disk at nearly 30MB/sec, and flash drives are maybe 20MB/sec or less, and much much slower when writing lots of small files. I don't know if its because I've always used cheap flash drives - maybe the big brand name ones are faster?

If a USB3 flash drive is going to be worthy of being a fast USB3 device, I'd hope it has faster memory that would let it write at least faster than USB2 is capable of, and if that were the case, I'd expect its speed on USB2 to be at least as good as a USB2 hard disk.

 

[pcgeek11]

USB 3.0 isn't around the corner... just buy a 3.0 drive (it works with 2.0 ports). USB 2.0 has always been painful.

A USB Thumb drive will not fit into a USB 2.0 slot. It is bigger

However a USB 2.0 will work and fit into a USB 3.0 slot.

 

[WildW]

A USB Thumb drive will not fit into a USB 2.0 slot. It is bigger
.

Ahh, this changes everything. lol

 

[pcgeek11]

Ahh, this changes everything. lol

Oops!

I guess I was incorrect:

USB 3.0 Type-A

The Type-A USB connection is by far the most common. The new USB 3.0 Type-A connectors are very similar in appearance to USB 2.0 connectors. The new version is slightly longer than its predecessor to accommodate the five SuperSpeed connection pins located in the connector rear.

USB 3.0 Type-A connectors are fully compatible with USB 2.0 ports and vice versa.

But they will operate at USB 2.0 speed when plugged into a USB 2.0 port.

Sorry.

 

[jjmIII]

At the time of USB 1.0, Everyone used those awful fucking Zip discs... look at one funny and it died - Seagate probably hired all of Iomega's engineers.

Ok, now your making me laugh :biggrin:

 

[dac7nco]

Ok, now your making me laugh :biggrin:

Heh, I'm dead serious - I'll never again buy a (consumer or enterprise) Seagate drive as long as I live.
I only do Samsung or WD now.

Daimon

 

[Zap]

If USB 2.0 was painful, what was USB 1.0?

Slower than death. OMFG I remember trying to copy a couple GB to an external HDD using USB 1 (or 1.1 or whatever) and it took all afternoon, until the HDD overheated and died.

my laptop only has USB 2.0, will a USB3 drive be any faster than a USB2 drive when connected to a USB2 port?

Yes and no. No in that you can't make USB 2.0 go any faster, but yes in that drives sold as USB 2.0 never filled up the pipe, so a USB 3.0 drive that is capable of faster-than-USB-2.0 performance will be limited in performance by USB 2.0, but will outperform a USB 2.0 flash drive. Like WildW said, note how HDDs outperform flash drives on USB 2.0.

Now, there are currently not that many USB 3.0 flash drives on the market, and they fall into two categories. First are basically drives that are like SATA SSDs. Super high performance shoehorned into an overgrown dongle with a super high price tag to go with the performance. Second are basically drives that are like existing USB flash drives, but just with boosted performance. These are almost as cheap as USB 2.0 drives, and I see them as being the mainstay of cheap USB 3.0 flash drives in the future due to cost. You can get a 16GB USB 3.0 drive for around $30, so roughly 150% the cost of a USB 2.0 16GB drive (around $20).

There has been quite a few reviews going around. Just search for "usb 3.0 flash drive review."

 

[C1]

To answer the OP some research is necessary. Some questions will be:
- Is the USB 3.0 flash connector back compatible to USB 2? (Answer must be Yes.)
- Is the flash's R/W speed sufficiently more capable than USB 2.0 transfer speed to justify the added cost of it being USB 3.0 compatible? (Answer should be Yes.)

 

[Engineer]

8GB USB 3.0 flash drives have been around $13 and 16GB around $24. I picked up a 16GB a few weeks back. Prices go in and out but the above has happened several times (Super Talent Brand).