Benchmarking No Difference Between USB 3.1 ports and USb 3.0

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
N

no1statistician

Commendable
Aug 21, 2016
21
0
1,520
My benchmark for usb 3.1 type c: http://usbflashspeed.com/234739
My benchmark for usb 3.0: http://usbflashspeed.com/234741

Both benchmarks look nearly identical. I can use type c and 3.0 because one side of my sandisk thumb drive has type c the other has type a. I have a z170-a motherboard with the newest bios and windows update. I have asmedia host controller type 3.1 installed version 1.1 by windows. Why are these speeds nearly identically?

EDIT: I've downloaded the newest usb firmware.
USB 3.1: http://usbflashspeed.com/234743
USB 3.0: http://usbflashspeed.com/234745

USB 3.1 looks slightly better. Again, does anyone know why the benchmarks are so similar. This is what I bought: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sandisk-ultra-32gb-usb-3-1-usb-type-c-flash-drive/5219000.p?skuId=5219000
 
Solution
k1114
That's the max for the flash drive if you look at the specs. Usb 3.0 max speed is ~500MB/s so it makes no difference if you use 3.0 or 3.1. Only usb ssds or ssd based flash drives hit that speed. There are not many products that take advantage of 3.1 right now.
Sort by date Sort by votes
k1114

k1114

Titan
May 2, 2010
14,240
93
75,540
That's the max for the flash drive if you look at the specs. Usb 3.0 max speed is ~500MB/s so it makes no difference if you use 3.0 or 3.1. Only usb ssds or ssd based flash drives hit that speed. There are not many products that take advantage of 3.1 right now.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
A

ArtPog

Admirable
Sep 17, 2014
2,951
3
8,965
Sad to say you're another victim of this disgraceful nomenclature involving the labeling of USB 3.1 devices.

Your San Disk flash drive is, for all practical purposes, a USB 3.0 device.

Note it is designated as a "USB 3.1 Gen 1" device - in effect a flash drive with USB 3.0 speed specs. In order for it to be a "true" USB 3.1 device (10 Mbps speed), it would need to be a USB 3.1 Gen 2 device.

The fact that its connector is Type C is immaterial. Type C in and of itself does NOT indicate the device is a USB 3.1 Gen 2, i.e., a "true" USB 3.1 device.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
N

no1statistician

Commendable
Aug 21, 2016
21
0
1,520


Yes I believe this should go down to the consumer protection agency as false advertising.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

ArtPog

Admirable
Sep 17, 2014
2,951
3
8,965


1. Setting aside the question as to whether this is "false advertising", the truth of the matter is that perhaps hundreds of thousands of PC users are purchasing devices labeled "USB 3.1" without knowing that for all practical purposes they're purchasing a USB 3.0 device. That's the simple truth.

2. The new USB speed naming conventions as promulgated by the industry association is a study in misrepresentation & confusion. It’s an absolute disgrace for consumers, since because of this new USB naming convention most of these consumers will have no idea that there can be no difference whatsoever re speed performance between a device advertised as USB 3.0 and another device advertised as USB 3.1.

3. While we have had no experience with using any USB 3.1 Gen 2 flash drives in order to compare speed differences (if any) with USB 3.0 (USB 3.1 Gen 1) flash drives (since there's virtually no market for USB 3.1 Gen 2 flash drives), we have used a number of USB 3.1 Gen 2 external enclosures (with our Z170 systems) with installed SSDs or HDDs. By & large we have found a 10% to 20% speed increase in data transfer rates using those devices as compared with USB 3.0 (USB 3.1 Gen 1) devices. Not as much as we had hoped for, but still better performance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
k1114

k1114

Titan
May 2, 2010
14,240
93
75,540
It's not false advertising for stating the max it "could" do but in the actual specs clearly state 150MBps. It's the same as hdds being labeled as 6Gbps for sata 3 yet hardly do sata 1 speeds. The tech world has always and will always be misrepresented and confusing to non computer people. You don't want to know how many people complain about internet speeds bits vs bytes, hdd sizes 1000 vs 1024, why a 4ghz eight core cpu is slower than a 3ghz dual core, amd apus adding the igpu as compute "cores," and just about everything.

The naming of usb 3.0/3.1 was one of the worst decisions that no one agreed with and was probably a push from manufacturers. It doesn't make any sense why 3.0 was changed to 3.1g1 and 3.1 to 3.1g2 other than the purpose to confuse and use 3.1 on all devices for marketing. But even when 3.0 first came out we actually saw 3.0 devices with 2.0 speeds so it's not entirely this name change issue. We all hate marketing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom