jaclaz Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Just for the record, a comparison test with different filesystems on different sticks:http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information...-ntfs-vs-exfat/Is it possible that Vista has re-added some speed to FAT32? jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilko_t Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 A few tests on Windows 7 x64.Buffalo RUF2-R2G USB stick, Windows 7 x64, xcopy-ing I386 folder only, from XP SP3 from a folder on the internal hard disk, 5878 small files, 375MB total. Default cluster size for 2GB partition, tests repeated several times with format before each.NTFS - 572.22 seconds FAT16 - 169.17 secondsFAT32 - 171.19 secondsQuite slow Apacer 4GB stick:NTFS - 696.48FAT16 - 818.19FAT32 - 903.17Optimize for performance/removal doesn't seem to make any sugnificant difference in each case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TELVM Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 (edited) I buy this Transcend Jetflash 790 flash drive and fire Crystaldiskmark up: Now it isn't that I like complaining, but those numbers look too good to be true. That'd be SATA III SSD speeds for ten euros. To add weirdness the test was done on a very modest AM1 system with just an X4 2.1GHz CPU, and the drive was on 'Quick Removal' (not 'Best Performance'). What do you think? EDIT - Never mind, I'm retarded and just mistakenly benchmarked the SSD instead of the flash drive. THIS is the flash drive benchmark, about what should be expected: Edited December 23, 2015 by TELVM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now