[QUOTE=DrageMester;2771942]Thanks for the review.
I think you’re being too kind to this kind of drive by only focusing on the performance on large files. This drive is pretty awful at handling small files compared to some other high-performance drives like e.g. the SanDisk Extreme USB 3.0 64 GB.
Let’s compare two benchmarks of the Kingston HyperX Savage 128 GB and the SanDisk Extreme USB 3.0 64 GB, which I have and ran some tests on for this thread.
Kingston HyperX Savage 128 GB (Crystal Disk Mark)
SanDisk Extreme USB 3.0 64 GB (Crystal Disk Mark)
Kingston HyperX Savage 128 GB (FastCopy)
SanDisk Extreme USB 3.0 64 GB (FastCopy) (Windows Defender in Normal mode)
SanDisk Extreme USB 3.0 64 GB (FastCopy) (Windows Defender set to exclude the FastCopy.exe process)
The fileset I used for FastCopy is not the same as yours but it’s approximately the same size.
The SanDisk drive is at least 8-9 times faster than the Kingston HyperX Savage for small files while the Kingston is up to 40% faster for large files.
In my opinion an “Excellent” drive shouldn’t have a major weakness like this, so I think the Kingston is only good for large files while being less than Excellent overall. Users should be aware of such weaknesses.[/QUOTE]
I cant comment on the SanDisk because i haven’t tested it, so I’ll take your word for it.
I have seen faster drives on the small file test, but I personally believe that most people will copy large files, such as flac, mp3, movies, isos, and very few will copy 48128 files, so my priority is on lagre files.
DrageMester thank you for your comments, as always they are correct and you give a lot to think about.
[QUOTE=CDan;2771962]Kinda confusing whether you’re reviewing the 64 or 128 versions of this drive. It does make a difference.[/QUOTE]
Its the 128GB drive I will fix this asap, thank you for the correction.