Corsair Flash Voyager GT 16GB MUCH SLOWER than 8GB

firewallblocked

firewallblocked

firewallblocked

Associate
Joined
14 Aug 2004
Posts
814
Location
Earth
http://www.houseofhelp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67674

Corsair Flash Voyager GT 16GB is going to be slower!!!! than previous 8GB versions. How mad is that! Imagine Intels latest cpu's being a fair bit slower that the model it replaces.

16GB prices are going to crash when people realise it's a downgrade speedwise, read the above article. Way to go Samsung. :mad:

Feel a bit sorry for Corsair, please pass on this info to avoid others getting burnt, or for entertainment if someone at work/college/school tries to show off their NEW Corsair 16GB GT just take out your 2, 4 or 8GB GT and challenge them to a 500MB transfer race! egg on face for the 16GB owner. *grin*

I use my 8GB flash drive EVERY day when working, transfering files up to 400mb so slower isn't required neither is 16GB really.
 
Some people might prefer the extra capacity than the speed though. I have the 4GB version - although I wish I got the 8GB. Although it was quite an upgrade from my 256mb crucial drive at the time.
 
I bought the 16GB (aint here yet) guessed it would be same as 8GB as newer models, I know the 32MB non GT is slower.

EDIT, Canceled my Drive, I have/had 2GB GT and 4GB GT for Readyboost, sold 2GB as now on 4GB Memory, used 1 for that and other for files.
 
Last edited:
firewallblocked said:
http://www.houseofhelp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67674

Corsair Flash Voyager GT 16GB is going to be slower!!!! than previous 8GB versions. How mad is that! Imagine Intels latest cpu's being a fair bit slower that the model it replaces.
Click to expand...

Er, that's not really a good analogy, because it's a storage device and as such speed isn't the primary marketing point (size is).

A better comparison would be with harddrives, and in fact it has been done before - marginally slower, larger drives have replaced faster models due to differences in platter sizes.
 
I have the 16GB one. I think I payed @ £50 for it and it's worth every penny. I do a lot of system building and to have all the images on one device is really handy.

Speed wise I have not noticed anything abnormal. I use Vista and boot from the drive it's a hell of a lot faster than CD's which is the main thing I use it as a replacement for. Also do a lot of documentation (Visio) and never noticed any problems.

I imagine it will be slower than a smaller device but for the massive space available I'll take the slight loss anyday.


M.
 
You have a 16GB non GT or GT (cause GT is just out in that size).

Matters to me TBH, dont want to go backwards and it takes long enough to full format the 4GB.

Speed is obv a valid point if Corsair offer a refund.
 
HangTime said:
Er, that's not really a good analogy, because it's a storage device and as such speed isn't the primary marketing point (size is).

A better comparison would be with harddrives, and in fact it has been done before - marginally slower, larger drives have replaced faster models due to differences in platter sizes.
Click to expand...

I didn't intend to compare it on drive size, more that 16gb and 8gb you would expect it to be the same speed only bigger on capacity. In the same way an external hard drive you wouldn't expect a 250gb to be faster than a 500gb drive if it was the same model range only different capacity. :)
 
fobose said:
Forgive my ignorance but why would you need to full format a pen drive?
Click to expand...

Because I want to (at times) and it does get messed up at times being on many customers PC's, Vista even offers to correct errors.

I have canceled mines end of.

P.S Thanks to OP for saving me wasting my time and money, stick to what I have and buy a 8GB or wait on better 16-32GB's.
 
Last edited:
It shouldn't get messed from using it on lots of machines if your using fat32. A full format is the same as a quick format, except it does a check disk on the drive. Seems very pointless to be scanning for bad sectors on a pen drive IMO ;)
 
m4cc45 said:
I have the 16GB one. I think I payed @ £50 for it and it's worth every penny. I do a lot of system building and to have all the images on one device is really handy.

Speed wise I have not noticed anything abnormal. I use Vista and boot from the drive it's a hell of a lot faster than CD's which is the main thing I use it as a replacement for. Also do a lot of documentation (Visio) and never noticed any problems.

I imagine it will be slower than a smaller device but for the massive space available I'll take the slight loss anyday.


M.
Click to expand...


My main point was that this change in memory used could happened without customers knowing. But then again my pc is slower with Vista installed than XP, so I should have seen it coming. :D

Your posting on overclockers and your not worried about the data transfer rate of your drive! Next your be saying your not using liquid nitrogen to cool your pc when overclocking. :eek:

Please note I can be a little sarcastic in some of my posts, don't take literally.
 
Listen m8, the topic is about fact the new Drive is not what many though it was (me inc), its my business if I decide to quick or full format it or do both standing on my head. :p

P.S Fat is a lot more fragile than NTFS. ;)

Hmm, BTW, a full format in FAT or NTFS does write over the DATA, the quick format only deleted index to the files so drive says its empty.

I aint here to debate it, I do not want this drive now and thanks to OP once again.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom