Transcend JetFlash 910 128GB USB 3.1 Fastest USB Flash Drive Gen 1 review 2020
Transcend JetFlash 910 128 GB Gen 1 USB 3.1 Flash DriveWhy did we recall the SanDisk Extreme Pro USB 3.1 above? Because in these models, not only the positioning coincides but also many characteristics accurate to the symbol. For example, both companies talk about USB 3.1 – but do not forget to add that it means only “Gen 1”, that is, a mode that is completely identical to the good old USB 3.0. Both models have two modifications – 128 and 256 GB. SanDisk reads and writes 420/380 MB / s for reading and writing, and Transcend for 420/400 MB / s. It would seem that the JetFlash 910 has a slight advantage, however, since both companies do not say anything about the conditions under which these results were obtained, and about which of the two modifications they relate to, we will refrain from early conclusions. In general, it is very similar. But structurally drives are a bit different. Extreme Pro USB 3.1 is larger than the main mass of flash drives: its dimensions are 71 × 21 × 11 mm, and the manufacturer does not voice the mass. The case is made of metal and plastic and has a retractable connector, which many do not like (although complaints about its loosening about this particular series are not heard). JetFlash 910 is more compact – only 69 × 17 × 7.4 mm with a mass of 11 g, and the design is almost monolithic: the connector is closed with a removable aluminum cap, and the case is made of the same metal. In principle, the difference in size is small but tangible. Especially if you carry the drive in your jeans pocket – and in this case, you also have to shake out the trash regularly from the Extreme Pro connector.
Testing Result For JetFlash 910 128 GB Gen 1 USB 3.1 Flash Drive
Testing procedure and samples for comparisonThe technique is described in detail in a separate article . There you can get acquainted with the software used, but as a test bench, we once again used the NUC 7i7BNH, which we smoothly “moved” to while studying external drives. But to compare our hero directly with no one. More precisely, it would be necessary to compare with SanDisk Extreme Pro USB 3.1 – but different capacities interfere 128 and 256 GB, respectively. Since capacity affects performance, you will have to consider this factor in the future. And for balance, we decided to take another SanDisk drive – Extreme Go 64 GB. Also, in principle, Extreme – but for very economical: the case is plastic, the capacity is only 64 GB, the performance is much lower than that of the older “relative”. However, at the same time, it is much higher than that of mass flash drives of the same (and even larger one) capacity. In general, this pair is enough for us to evaluate from above, and to evaluate from below.
Application PerformanceOnce these scenarios had only theoretical significance, but ten years ago Microsoft seriously bothered supporting Windows on USB drives and made great strides in this way: Windows 10 does not see a fundamental difference between external and internal drives. It is clear that for such purposes it is better to use an external SSD, good and capacious, and faster – but for episodic (and not regular) use, a large flash drive is also suitable. Especially if it belongs to the high-speed family. But which one handles the “system” loads better? JetFlash 910 turned out to be the fastest – its results are almost indistinguishable from some internal SSDs, such as WD Green / SanDisk SSD Plus with a capacity of 120/240 GB. Which is typical – in the low-level mode too. Extreme Pro USB 3.1 is not far behind, but behind, and Extreme Go works at the level of many hard drives only. Considering that the latter is still used by some to emulate the system drive, we can assume that any “decent” USB flash drive is now suitable for this role. And the best models of the latter almost catch up with some SATA SSDs, albeit still lagging behind the average level in this class.
Sequential operationsApproximate parity with Extreme Pro USB 3.1 when working in a single stream – and in multi-threaded mode, a clear victory. There is nothing more to compare with the bulk of flash drives. But when recording, alas, far from records. Explainable – there wasn’t enough cache. Actually, for this, we at one time chose a 16 GB workspace in order to bring such methods of increasing productivity to fresh water . True, it is worth recognizing that the controllers of the “adult” SSD have already won a similar approach – but with flash drives so far everything works out. What needs to be done to see something similar to the specifications? Since SLC caching is used, it is enough to reduce the amount of data. So, for example, with the default selected in this program (which is the majority used in “personal” tests) 1 GB, we received 337.2 MB / s for sequential reading and 227 MB / s for writing – also less than “promised “, As promised in general for the family. The 256 GB modification should work just as quickly. In general, just for the future, it should be borne in mind that in the modern world, the stability of the speed characteristics of consumer drives is usually absent. And manufacturers, of course, always talk about the best case. Which, in general, is true – but only part of the truth.
Work with large filesMoreover, it is worth considering the nuances of the work of simple low-level benchmarks – a simple transition to the file level (which is much more trusted) allows you to get even higher results for reading. But the recording didn’t work out that way. What else was “promoted” by the low capacity of the drive we got – because of this free space during the test was not enough, so there was nowhere to turn to the cache. On the other hand, again, we recall the “behavior” of many external SSDs. In particular, the already mentioned Transcend ESD240C at 480 GB with only 100 GB of free space recorded 32 GB in one file at a speed of 80.5 MB / s, and produced a “steeper” 350C of the same capacity under similar conditions 91.9 MB / s. And here is just a compact (still) flash drive – and 57.9 MB / s. Yes, under such conditions, SanDisk Extreme Pro USB 3.1 is still faster, and some external SSDs are even faster. But we still won’t criticize our hero today. For him, this is a very difficult scenario – with which, however, he copes relatively well.
TotalIn principle, a miracle did not happen – extreme speed characteristics must be sought in a completely different class of devices. However, as we have seen more than once, and external SSDs, speed indicators in fact do not turn out to be so “extreme” in all situations. Self-selection of components and assembly of an external SSD allows you to get more. But, firstly, it’s not so cheap, secondly, it still makes sense with capacities of half a terabyte, and thirdly, it’s necessary to put up with larger dimensions, and with other features. And not everyone wants to mess with such an assembly. A “ready” drive may not always be faster than a good flash drive – but it will always be more expensive. Transcend JetFlash 910 is aimed precisely at those who just want to buy a good fast flash drive, and it is a flash drive – compact and relatively inexpensive. Especially in cases where hundreds of gigabytes are not required – just one or two is enough, but to quickly “average” models. With the preservation of all their advantages in the form of size and ease of use. This approach inevitably leads to compromises, but, as it seems to us, in this case, the company’s idea was completely successful.