PQI Cool Drive U339V (64 GB)
The next test candidate is the Cool Drive U339V from PQI, which is available in 8, 16, 32, and 64 GB capacities. We didn’t find this product available on any of the popular online merchants and, we sincerely hope that it is not a phantom product.
On the Taiwanese drive manufacturer's Web site, we find information claiming that the product offers ten times more bandwidth than a USB 2.0 stick. This corresponds only to the gross bandwidth. In practice, expect two to five times better performance. The transfer rates published by PQI do indeed seem to be possible: 30, 17, or 10 MB/s when writing, depending on the capacity of the drive, and 54 to 68 MB/s shouldn't by hard to hit for reads.
We identified a 68 MB/s read transfer rate, which is consistent with PQI’s in-house testing. We also found a write transfer rate of 30-46 MB/s, which exceeds the parameters provided by PQI. Real-world write performance was often below the 30 MB/s stated by PQI, but this is not unusual.
As an all-around product with reasonable performance, the PQI Cool Drive U339V could be interesting if the price is right. Unfortunately, the fact that it's hardly available makes it even tougher to recommend.
The article is a complete failure. You THG people ignored encryption as a metric. Why??!!
Flash drives are cheap. Company information and regulatory items (HIPAA for example) are priceless.
I'm a "road warrior" that depends on a flash drive for my daily work: IRONKEY. My employer provides it. I am legally required to use it. It is hardware encrypted. The drive might be stolen or lost, but the data will not seen by any unauthorized user.
If I lose my drive, the physical media is lost. I have medical databases that I am required to keep secret via government regulation. My drive will wipe itself after 10 incorrect login attempts.
Do any of the reviewed drives on THG do this?
This in my opinion is altogether a different topic and should be covered in different article where the encryption also as well as over performance be compared.
Agreed, I'll pass that feedback along to the author.
I did read the article. One drive supporting cryto does not a metric make, which I mentioned. That feature is an anomaly and not a fundamental feature (metric) of the article.
"Maybe you should read."
Reading is good. Comprehension is even better. I suggest you begin there, since you obviously cannot do that.
Your post reads like an advertisement and you complain that they didn't do an encryption comparison when only 1 drive supports it at hardware level. On top of that cant you read, this is a USB 3.0 test, ironkey only does 2.0. Furthermore your employer provides your drive so what difference would it make if they said your ironkey was a slow but safe piece of $#!t? This is an everyday-user drive roundup for fast file transfer, not a business specific roundup that would be useless to most tom's readers. You said it yourself, your company provides secure storage since they expect you to move important files. Typical users won't need this and if they do the decision most likely will be out of their hands. Additionally in a security environment the protection far outweighs the need for speed, so the test metric would be completely different than how consumer grade drives would be tested.
You don't seem to comprehend the use of your drive and what features the owner actually values.
we do not always looking for speed, we are also looking for backup or archive of sensitive data.
and other peoples are looking for speed only, for sure, because they hate loosing time in data transfert :)
but the same questions are also for classic HDD, not only USB keys.