Kingston DataTraveler Exodia Onyx - USB - Flash Drive 128GB

Kingston DataTraveler Exodia Onyx 64GB speed test here
• Kingston DataTraveler ...
for quick orders WhatsApp [phone] or visit our website www.silicon.pk
#kingston #exodia #onyx #siliconcomputers #siliconpk #KingstonPakistan

[@JC-XL]

I'm surprised the 128Gb has lower write speed than the 64Gb that you tested in the other video. Larger drives usually have higher speeds and it was true for the read speed.

[@SiliconPk]

yes you are right, i am also surprised by lower write speed of higher capacity flash drive

[@illuminatiwave8093]

​​@@SiliconPkHere with a 256gb version... The speed is unbelievably disastrous (9 MB W / 36 MB R)
USB 3.0 port (A sata SSD reaches 380 MB W / 500 MB R)
(W)rite / (R)ead

[@SiliconPk]

@@illuminatiwave8093 speed of this model is really slow

[@loucipher7782]

meanwhile you can easily get an SSD with 400+MBps speed at the same price nowadays lol
pendrive uses the crappiest flash they can get

[@victorsimeonov]

Not surprising at all, especially for this class of Kingston USB drives.
It's mostly about the flash controller they use - it has very low builtin SRAM cache memory for caching the FTL (flash translation layer, block mapping mandatory for any flash memory storage device) - on the order of kilobytes to low tens of kilobytes, much less than a proper DRAM-less SSD has - which is on the order of 1-2MBytes.
Before any block can be accessed (read or written) on the flash memory, the logical->true physical block address must be checked in the FTL map, which is (one reason) why the sequential accesses are much better than the random accesses - the FTL uses (mostly) adjacent entries in the FTL map when the accesses are (mostly) big sequential chunks, so it's relatively easy to both cache multi-block entries of the FTL even in tiny amounts of cache AND it is also relatively efficient to fetch the next multi-block entry/block group map from the actual flash into the cache AND it's relatively easy to predict where the next access would hit.
With random accesses, none of those "relatively easy" operations is easy/efficiently cacheable/effective ly predictable anymore - every random access to single small blocks (pages) of data on the flash is independent, and, pretty much, one hidden/service block of the FTL map (which is persistently stored on the flash memory just like the user-visible useful data/files) must be fetched from the actual flash memory... so, approximately (and, in reality, somewhat optimistically), 2 random blocks must be accessed before 1 useful data block can be accessed. For smaller usb drives (16GB, 32GB, to some extent for 64GB but it depends on how big the flash blocks are - could be 4KB, could be 8KB, or 16KB, or 32KB) it is like that. For 128GB and 256GB drives, it's more like 3-4 blocks for 1 block of useful data, so much worse, because for bigger drives there are more flash blocks, and the FTL map grows proportionally bigger, and when a map/table of blocks/pages grows big, it becomes multi-layered/hierarchical (with top-level maps telling the controller where to find the sub-maps or sub-sub-maps which eventually say where to find the physical block with the useful data). It's very similar to how page tables function in operating systems and CPUs for RAM/virtual memory/applications memory.
Naturally, fetching all those (intermediate) FTL map blocks and processing all those map records consumes CPU cycles as well, the more complex the map - the more the CPU cycles. Unfortunately, the controllers these cheap flash sticks use are microcontrollers with weak CPUs (alongside the low SRAM memory), meaning that both the processor and the memory become bottlenecks at the same time.
Of course, bigger flash sticks SHOULD use bigger controllers with bigger SRAM memory and with bigger, faster, and multicore CPU part of the microcontroller -- but usually they don't, in order to save money; the flash sticks manufacturers often keep using the same model/size of microcontroller across the whole series of sizes ranging from e.g
16GB or 32GB through 64GB, then 128GB and all the way through to 256GB.
That's why every bigger size gets slower and less efficient to access, both for sequential large-chunk accesses like big files, and also for the random/small-chunk/single-flash-block accesses. While the slowdown in sequential big-chunk accesses is visible the bigger the flash stick becomes, it's usually tolerable, while the small/random accesses become abysmal.
The deal with writes of random/small blocks (and files, as small files translate to small blocks) is that, for writes, a second map needs to be accessed - the one which tracks which physical blocks are still free (this means extra reads to fetch the relevant portion of this map); when a free tiny block (or a small number of tiny blocks) is found (the search through the free blocks map/table/list(s) eats some CPU cycles, too!), the map of free physical blocks must now be updated to reflect that the blocks which have just been allocated are now taken/used up (which means extra write(s) and possibly read(s) to find where the allocation map update can be written to, which must again be in a free physical block...).
On a flash controller with a decently-sized internal memory (SRAM or DRAM or both), a whole bunch of tens to hundreds of useful data small writes/blocks + the accompanying updates to the two maps would easily be buffered and batched together to happen in fewer and bigger actual physical read and write operations to the flash, which would be hundreds of times more efficient and respectively faster.

[@SandrodePaula]

nice review, nice benchmark (file transfer test)

[@annube1440]

Hola, una pregunta, es normal que mi memoria ya no le cierre la tapa? Es que la abrí y ahora ya no cierra 😢

[@SiliconPk]

never saw this kind of issue

[@phantomspartan1427]

U brought usb 3.2 right that is not 3.2 it 3.0 check it out when you disconnect safely remove icon

[@SiliconPk]

packing of kingston mentions usb 3.2

[@dududiascoelho]

Are you thinking testing the version with 256gb? i have one and it only makes 7mb/s reading 😔😔😔😔😔😔

[@SiliconPk]

speed depends upon hardware

[@AnkhorXtreme]

I have a memory usb kingston 128gb exodia and i have the same problem (7.5Mb/s)

[@dududiascoelho]

@@AnkhorXtreme i thought it was only with me ☹️☹️☹️ i bought it to use as a storage for my games, but when i started to download i saw how slow 🥺

[@barisatilgan]

have lenovo 3.2 port?

[@olavbass]

When he copying video file to flash drive, video is speed up. This Kington drive is garbage. I had 14 drives and every single one cannot exceed 11-12 mbps but with interuptions on every 2 seconds. Pure garbage.

[@andresandres3319]

only 7 mbps writing its too slow ,

[@TonyMontana-xj3zv]

for such a cheap ass thumb drive 14 mb/s write speed is enough, i own already a corsair voyager gt (red) with 64 gigs, it goes always write speed 72mb/s never dropped below for the whole day testing, and read speed always 370--380 mb/s. (read speed drops only when the internal ssd doesn't keep up), so this kingston is not for me.

[@SiliconPk]

speed is according to price. some flash drives now a days have speed upto 600 MB/s we will check their speed very soon on channel

[@syahmioziar5290]

​@@SiliconPkwhat usb you recommend to buy for storing movie file

[@SiliconPk]

@@syahmioziar5290 yes 100%

totally garbage. i got 64gb before, while transfer files it goes to zero and constantly 100 kb around. i wont meet kingston anymore!!!

[@S.C.A.M.B.E.R.]

Not even close to theoretical max speed of USB 3.0. Scam