Why aren't there any USB 2.0 flash drives that operate at USB 2.0 speeds?
I'd literally pay $50+ for a 64GB+ USB 2.0 flash drive that saturates the bus.
>>55551915
I dunno
>>55551915
I dunno
>>55551915
I dunno
>>55551915
Most of them do saturate the USB 2.0 connection. What kind of speeds did you expect? Are you confusing megabits and megabytes?
>>55551915
I dunno
Because then it wouldn't be 3.0
3.0 is 1.0 more than 2.0
>>55551960
I'm not, however I've never seen a non-usb 3.0 flash drive go over 8-12 megabytes per second.
I get 50+ on my 3.0 ones. Just think it would be nice to have that shit around, they clearly have the flash to actually do it. Strange since it's an untapped market.
Or a market that only I want to exist.
>>55551987
>8-12 megabytes per second
What the fuck? The cheap ones I use transfer data around 20-30 megabytes per second. You've got problems mate.
>>55552005
>tfw it's every drive on every system I've used
fuck me then
>>55551987
Kek, mine go up to 32 easily
>>55551987
Just 50+ with USB 3.0? WTF I get easily over 120
>>55552023
USB 3.0 drive in a USB 2.0 slot.
>>55552032
USB 2.0 has a maximum limit of 35MB. You can't get over that, even if you use a USB 3.0 device
>>55552058
480 mbps is faster than 35MB senpai
>>55552032
That makes more sense. 50MB is approaching the theoretical limit of USB 2.0.
>>55552058
The limit is 480Mb or 60MB but you'll never see that.
>>55552065
>>55552081
> Due to bus access constraints, the effective throughput of the High Speed signaling rate is limited to 280 Mbit/s or 35 MB/s
Unless you want to tell me you ever got higher than this.
>>55551915
>this thread represents the average /g/ user
>>55552087
I got somewhere about 40 MB/s with Zalman HDD 3.0 case connected to a USB 2.0 port.
>>55552155
proof or shit
>>55552155
Usually the OS misreports copy speed at the beginning, and becomes accurate only after some time, so you don't know the correct speed when copying small files. Try copying a 2GB file and check the speed at 1.5GB-2GB.
