| Corsair Flash Survivor GT 8GB USB 2.0 Flash Drive
|
Testing (continued):
HD Tune 2.53:
HD Tune 2.53 is another benchmark that tests drive performance, and it is very similar to HD Tach. The graph below details the results for access time, average transfer rate, and burst rate, where lower values are better for access time and higher values are better for the other two categories.
The results from HD Tune confirm what was initially found in HD Tach, which is that the Corsair Survivor GT can access data much faster, but that the average and burst speeds of the drive are about equal.
Real World Testing:
The real world testing portion of the review consisted of sending actual files to and from the flash drives in two phases, small files and large files. Small file testing consisted of transferring one folder of 323 .MP3 files with a total size of 1.25GB. Large file testing consisted of transferring one folder of 3 .VOB (DVD) files with a total size of 3.0GB.
The Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 750GB SATA Hard Drive was the original location of these files for the writing tests, and was the final location for these files for the reading tests. A separate directory was used on the hard drive for reading and writing, and the system was rebooted after each transfer test. A stop watch was used to record the time it took to complete each transfer, and these values were used to calculate the effective data transfer rate.
The graph above confirms what was seen in the first two tests; that the Corsair Survivor GT is much quicker at writing and that both drives perform about as well at reading. While the drives provided nearly identical read performance in the benchmarks, in real world use the Corsair drive holds a slight edge over the OCZ Technology drive.
The test results all confirm that the Corsair Flash Survivor GT 8GB USB 2.0 Flash Drive has the speed to make quick work of any data transfers.
|
|
|
|
