Why are USB 2.0 sticks much less the 60MB/s?

[Lorne]

There are also differences at times when using front of case ports and back motherboard ports.
A lot of case manufactures use low quality/gauge or unshielded wire and this can cause USB devices to be slow.

 

[LTC8K6]

Toshiba 16Gb TransMemory USB2 stick
Crystal disk mark
i5-3330 system
2.0 port:
18.9 read 13.9 write
3.0 port:
19.3 read 14.4 write

 

[LTC8K6]

PNY 8Gb 2.0 stick in 3.0 port:
27 read 5 write

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Me too. Had one get hosed around maybe '05 or '06, went to NTFS, and it's mostly been good since. There should be no difference between an HDD and thumb drive, so long as the controller doesn't go haywire if unplugged while writing.

USB 2.0 on the PC side, with whatever drivers were in the kernel. I had meant to use USB 3.0, but Dell makes all the ports black, so I ended up using the wrong one.

I'm just worried the standard NTFS 4KB page size will wear out the NAND quicker. There is a reason full-blown SSDs use pretty advanced controllers. Flash drives on the other hand tend to use very simple controllers with limited wear-levelling, like flash cards (SD and so on).

There are also differences at times when using front of case ports and back motherboard ports.
A lot of case manufactures use low quality/gauge or unshielded wire and this can cause USB devices to be slow.

Yup. What's more, if you go USB3 w/UASP, a lot of cheap cables simply cannot handle 400MB/s+ transfer rates without random disconnects...

Edit; I can just imagine how USB 3.1 will behave in this regard. It'll likely need some pretty beefy cables, with plenty of shielding.