Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Silicon Power eSATA/USB SSD (eSATA, USB 2.0, 32 GB)

USB 3.0 On A Stick: Super Talent's RAIDDrive 64 GB
By

Our eSATA/USB drive was one of the first products to seriously beef up throughput for thumb drive products. This 32 GB product employs four-channel flash memory internally, and achieves read throughput of up to 65 MB/s and 42 MB/s for writes.

The device supports eSATA as well as Micro USB. However, Micro USB throughput will be limited at under 30 MB/s, which isn’t what you’d expect from a modern USB 2.0 drive. Thus eSATA remains the better choice, especially if you’re spending more money on a high-speed drive.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 31 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 10 Hide
    cdillon , June 4, 2010 4:20 PM
    JPForumsIn truth, USB3 itself currently has no practical advantage over eSATA.


    USB3 has integrated power and physical port compatibility with the millions of USB1/2 devices out there. Seems like a whoppingly huge "practical advantage" to me.
Other Comments
  • 0 Hide
    spidey180 , June 4, 2010 6:29 AM
    freakin awesome
  • 0 Hide
    wintermint , June 4, 2010 6:46 AM
    Rev your porn engines!
  • 3 Hide
    pinkfloydminnesota , June 4, 2010 6:48 AM
    No readyboost tests?
  • -6 Hide
    zoridon , June 4, 2010 7:30 AM
    Whats the price?
  • -1 Hide
    Gin Fushicho , June 4, 2010 7:42 AM
    So does the Super Talent drive work fine without the drivers? No need to deal with the issues it brings?
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , June 4, 2010 7:52 AM
    Ethernet has more latency, wich is the delay when doing stuff. Sending things over high bandwitdth network with latency can be like A:Hi! B:Hm.......................................................Yeah, Hi! Where the bad performance hit comes not from the overall bandwidth but from the delay when doing things in the protocol stack. That's why disk fibre channel with equal speed is much faster than ethernet, and this thinking should go into the comparison of USB too.
  • 4 Hide
    JPForums , June 4, 2010 11:32 AM
    These are fast drives no doubt, but I take issue with the idea that eSATA drives are inherently inferior. The current crop of eSATA flash drives (represented by the OCZ drive) aren't fast enough to push the standard and thus slower than the new USB3 drive (which also isn't fast enough to saturate eSATA). I suspect this has more to do with the flash and flash controller the makers chose to use. After all, there isn't much incentive to produce super fast flash (non-SSD) architectures when the benefits can't be used in the vast majority (USB2) of the market. I'd also like to point out that 64GB of flash allows for more parallel channels than 8GB.

    In truth, USB3 itself currently has no practical advantage over eSATA. Case and point, I am currently running an OCZ Vertex 2 on a Thermaltake eSATA dock at work. The drive runs, for all intents and purposes, at the same speed as it does internally. Enthusiasts covering the topic know this Sandforce based drive runs much faster than the drives in this comparison. I know it's not fair to compare an SSD to a flash disk (thumb drive), but the comparison made here is equally invalid when answering the question presented at the beginning of the article:

    Quote:
    Wondering how fast USB 3.0 runs compared to USB 2.0 and eSATA?


    The article presents a relatively good answer to the question: "Which format currently holds the title of fastest flash drive?" However, to answer the question presented, you should use the fastest devices available for each format. In this case, you've limited the performance of two of the formats in question as there are faster devices available.
  • -2 Hide
    ta152h , June 4, 2010 12:43 PM
    Intel non-graphics PCIe 1x slots are not version 1.1, they are 2.0, but they run at PCIe 1.1 speeds. This isn't a huge distinction, but one nonetheless.

    Because Intel cut corners with their southbridge, you could see organic USB 3.0 implementations faster than those with discrete cards (since they can use two lanes).
  • 3 Hide
    ta152h , June 4, 2010 12:50 PM
    JPForumsThese are fast drives no doubt, but I take issue with the idea that eSATA drives are inherently inferior. The current crop of eSATA flash drives (represented by the OCZ drive) aren't fast enough to push the standard and thus slower than the new USB3 drive (which also isn't fast enough to saturate eSATA). I suspect this has more to do with the flash and flash controller the makers chose to use. After all, there isn't much incentive to produce super fast flash (non-SSD) architectures when the benefits can't be used in the vast majority (USB2) of the market. I'd also like to point out that 64GB of flash allows for more parallel channels than 8GB. In truth, USB3 itself currently has no practical advantage over eSATA. Case and point, I am currently running an OCZ Vertex 2 on a Thermaltake eSATA dock at work. The drive runs, for all intents and purposes, at the same speed as it does internally. Enthusiasts covering the topic know this Sandforce based drive runs much faster than the drives in this comparison. I know it's not fair to compare an SSD to a flash disk (thumb drive), but the comparison made here is equally invalid when answering the question presented at the beginning of the article:The article presents a relatively good answer to the question: "Which format currently holds the title of fastest flash drive?" However, to answer the question presented, you should use the fastest devices available for each format. In this case, you've limited the performance of two of the formats in question as there are faster devices available.


    I agree, it's unclear to me what this article is about. If seems to indicate that it's about comparing technologies behind drives, but if that's the case, it fails horribly. It's obvious the drives themselves have a lot to do with the performance, not the interface, and since they didn't make a real effort to compare drives as identically as possible on eSATA and USB 3.0, it's impossible to conclude anything useful about the interfaces.

    Having said that, we do get a better picture of USB 3.0 vis-a-vis USB 2.0. I know this isn't that useful, but it's better than nothing.
  • 1 Hide
    annymmo , June 4, 2010 1:26 PM
    The ethernet interface is made to operate at larger distances.
    Thus must be prepared to latency and hence doesn't mind encountering.
    Using fiber over distances longer than two meters actually makes sense.
    Hopefully intel Lightpeak will allow us to be able to do very long distances. I can't wait for it.

  • 0 Hide
    Pei-chen , June 4, 2010 2:17 PM
    eSATA is long dead. An external power brick just doesn't make much sense and now with USB3, there is no reason for its existance.
  • 10 Hide
    cdillon , June 4, 2010 4:20 PM
    JPForumsIn truth, USB3 itself currently has no practical advantage over eSATA.


    USB3 has integrated power and physical port compatibility with the millions of USB1/2 devices out there. Seems like a whoppingly huge "practical advantage" to me.
  • 2 Hide
    segio526 , June 4, 2010 5:32 PM
    I chose to do a USB 3.0 setup at home for my backups vs eSata for several reasons. One was the backwards compatibility, so I get an extra USB port on my system (although I do have 2 wasted eSata ports), and Two, I've had way too many issues with hot disconnecting eSata drives (I've lost quite a few drives on different eSata controllers and different eSata enclosures. Yes I was telling Windows to disconnect before actually unplugging). In the end, I'm very happy with 60MB/s with an external 7200 RPM 2TB drive.
  • 3 Hide
    bildo123 , June 4, 2010 5:37 PM
    "The USB 3.0 standard is also referred to as SuperSpeed USB. This was necessary because USB 2.0 was promoted as High-Speed USB several years ago."

    USB 4.0...Ludicrous Speed USB!!!
  • -1 Hide
    WR2 , June 4, 2010 6:47 PM
    I had been wondering how fast USB 3 was compared to USB 2 / eSAT\.
    Thanks for giving us a peek at what's out there.
  • 1 Hide
    tharkis842 , June 4, 2010 8:11 PM
    Wow, can't wait to get my hands on a usb 3.0 mobo.
  • 2 Hide
    jimmysmitty , June 4, 2010 8:15 PM
    bildo123"The USB 3.0 standard is also referred to as SuperSpeed USB. This was necessary because USB 2.0 was promoted as High-Speed USB several years ago."USB 4.0...Ludicrous Speed USB!!!


    "They've gone plaid!!!!"

    hehe....

    For the article, on the second page it had the nominal thourough put in Mgeabytes as Mb/s and it should be MB/s. Should fix it so it doesn't confuse people.

    But USB 3.0 looks promising. Its pretty fast and has just started really. I am sure new enhancements will come to make it faster and better and hopefully get close to the 500MB/s nominal speed.

    Maybe when Lightpeak hits it will be able to do that since light has been known to be able to maximize nominal speeds much easier than copper wire.
  • 0 Hide
    NucDsgr , June 4, 2010 11:00 PM
    An interesting article. Yes, Native USB 3.0 and SATA 6G is worth it once devices eventually become available that can utilize the bandwidth.

    Still for a Thumb Drive to utilize USB3.0 requires special drivers and RAID architecture on a "Thumb Drive". For USB3.0 to become mainstream, the flash architecture within the "Thumb Drive" will have to be significantly revamped. This things look much larger than the typical thumb drive.

    I myself would be better off with the OCZ USB2.0 product for the files I move.
  • -4 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , June 5, 2010 12:31 AM
    Wow. I can see it now. Byebye HDD and SSD, Hello USB3!
  • 1 Hide
    hakesterman , June 5, 2010 5:30 AM
    SSD is the future for Hard Drives, USB3 is for thumb drives and external add-on's. They are both Awsome!
Display more comments