AfterDawn: News

First USB 3.0 flash drive coming from Super Talent

Super Talent has announced the launch of the first USB 3.0 flash drive this week, with transfer rates of up to 320MB/sec, about 10x faster then current USB 2.0 drives.

The SuperSpeed USB 3.0 RAIDDrive will be available in 32GB, 64GB and 128GB models and will measure 3.7 inches by 1.4 inches with 0.5-inch depth.



The drive works with USB 2.0 ports but at the slower speeds. If using a 3.0 port, the SuperSpeed can handle transfer speeds up to 320MB/sec compared to 480Mbit/sec for 2.0.

The drive is set for release next month but the company has not confirmed a price yet. You can certainly expect the largest capacity to be over $300 USD, however, with the 32GB model likely selling for $75-90.



Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 11 Nov 2009 15:46

• Previous article

• Blockbuster to rent movies on SD cards

• Next article

• Convicted console modder has appeal thrown out

• 18 comments

• mike.m

  $75-90 is not bad for a 32GB. But over $300 for 128GB is still way too expensive. Of course it's one of the first USB 3.0 Flash drives, so like with the first SSD's, the first couple of releases will be expensive of course for a while. But 3.7 x 1.4 inches? That is one big Flash drive.

  11.11.2009 16:53 #1

• Interestx

  Very impressive - but I think you've made a little typo.
  
  I had a look at their web-site & they claim transfer speeds up to 200MB/sec in USB 3.0 port and transfer speeds up to 320MB/sec in USB 3.0 port with UAS Protocol driver.
  
  I don't know what your "480Mbit/sec for 2.0" is about though, maybe I misunderstood?
  What I do know is that current USB 2.0 flash drive speeds are anything between reading @ 3.5MB/s - 34MB/s and writing @ 5MB/s - 28MB/s.
  
  http://www.everythingusb.com/hardware/St...lash_Drives.htm
  
  All in all 320MB/s is a heck of a step forward - and is actually nicely ahead of the initial 300MB/s roadmap announcement
  (I wonder what other specs they announced will prove to be conservative and exceeded quickly).
  
  These sizes are just the first stage of the latest roadmap, 2tb flash drives are coming and this must end up driving down the prices of these (curently large) drives.
  
  http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,39589099,00.htm

  11.11.2009 20:46 #2

• cyprusrom

  Quote:I don't know what your "480Mbit/sec for 2.0" is about though, maybe I misunderstood? I think the confusion arises from inconsistency, using two different measurement units.
  The "480Mbit/sec for 2.0", that is the theoretical speed that USB 2.0 can achieve(~ 60MB/sec), versus 3.0, which is 10x faster, about 4.8Gbit/sec, which would be ~600MB/sec.
  
  The 320MB/sec, that is closer to the actual speed that USB 3.0 would achieve.

  11.11.2009 21:18 #3

• LissenUp

  Originally posted by Interestx: Very impressive - but I think you've made a little typo.
  
  I had a look at their web-site & they claim transfer speeds up to 200MB/sec in USB 3.0 port and transfer speeds up to 320MB/sec in USB 3.0 port with UAS Protocol driver.
  
  I don't know what your "480Mbit/sec for 2.0" is about though, maybe I misunderstood?
  What I do know is that current USB 2.0 flash drive speeds are anything between reading @ 3.5MB/s - 34MB/s and writing @ 5MB/s - 28MB/s.
  
  http://www.everythingusb.com/hardware/St...lash_Drives.htm
  
  All in all 320MB/s is a heck of a step forward - and is actually nicely ahead of the initial 300MB/s roadmap announcement
  (I wonder what other specs they announced will prove to be conservative and exceeded quickly).
  
  These sizes are just the first stage of the latest roadmap, 2tb flash drives are coming and this must end up driving down the prices of these (curently large) drives.
  
  " target="_blank">http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,10000...,00.htm
  
  
  Ok..........USB explained. 2.0 has the POTENTIAL to transfer at 480Mbps (that's "mega bits" as opposed to "bytes" {small 'b' compared to capital 'B') (8 bits = 1 byte)
  
  So 480Mbps / 8 (bits) = 60 Megabytes
  Multiply 60 by 1024(digital) = 61.4 MBps
  
  
  
  So yes.........it's a big increase but will NEVER EVER reach that "potential" of 200 or 320 and will probably be about 50% of that.
  
  Basically the person that commented before me was right on. I should have used "theoretical" instead of "potential" but both are fairly correct.

  12.11.2009 01:14 #4

• KillerBug

  There are huge differences between "theoretical" and "potential"...especialy when it comes to electronics. Supertalent does make relativly fast flash memory...but the Intel G2 SSD drives are the fastest SATA SSDs arround, and they can't even transfer at 300, let alone 320. It might transfer a bit over the USB2.0 ceiling...but I doubt that it is much faster than 60MBPS.
  
  Then there is the size...bigger than some SSD units! It doesn't even have a loop for a lanyard! It clearly blocks any USB port nearby, and will probably have a lot of issues with looser USB ports due to it's weight.
  
  Then there is the price...it is clearly large enough to house 32 microsdhc cards. 8GB cards are $16...so you could buy 128GB of flash memory for $256, and it would fit in less than half the space that this drive takes up. Granted, you would still need the RAID-FLASH-READER drive, but such issues would not be a concern to a company like super-talent who has their own manufactuing facilities.

  12.11.2009 04:31 #5

• cyprusrom

  Quote:So yes.........it's a big increase but will NEVER EVER reach that "potential" of 200 or 320 and will probably be about 50% of that.
  
  Basically the person that commented before me was right on. I should have used "theoretical" instead of "potential" but both are fairly correct.
  Except for which is which, 320MB/sec is the speed that USB 3.0 actually achieves, the theoretical sped is about 4.8Gbit/sec.

  12.11.2009 10:46 #6

• ZippyDSM

  Stupid question Esata vrs USB 3 which is faster?
  
  Should I bother to invest in USB 3 or just keep going with Esata.

  12.11.2009 11:04 #7

• cyprusrom

  I'd say go with USB 3.0. Is more than fast enough for the fastest hard drives, small, can power your gadgets connected to it(unlike eSata)

  12.11.2009 11:14 #8

• ZippyDSM

  Originally posted by cyprusrom: I'd say go with USB 3.0. Is more than fast enough for the fastest hard drives, small, can power your gadgets connected to it(unlike eSata) Ok so I should postpone plans to get a 100$ esata/sata hub and wait for something with USB 3.0.

  12.11.2009 11:41 #9

• joe777

  I think zip if you are using a usb 3 flash drive then you will see the speed difference, the same as using SSD through sata or esata. But if you are using a sata HDD to connect to your system then your HDD is the limiting factor and thus you will only have the speed that the HDD is capable of. The connection itself is very fast but its what your connecting with thats the problem.
  Anyway its going to be a long time before any of these high speed drives become affordable and the important thing is, do you really need the extra speed for what you are doing? bringing the price into consideration? Oh me, 1TB sata = 60 / 80 Euros 100MB/s + to read and 50/70 MB/s writing, compared to 1TB SSD 3200 Euros!!!!! 260MB read and 260MB write, prices here http://www.alternate.nl/html/categoryLis...l2=SSD&l3=SATA&
  
  At those prices fill your boots with sata HDD's and forget SSD unless you really need the speed.
  Or if you dont need the speed but have money burning a hole in your pocket, then say to yourself " I feel the need, the need for speed" Lol

  12.11.2009 21:58 #10

• ZippyDSM

  Originally posted by joe777: I think zip if you are using a usb 3 flash drive then you will see the speed difference, the same as using SSD through sata or esata. But if you are using a sata HDD to connect to your system then your HDD is the limiting factor and thus you will only have the speed that the HDD is capable of. The connection itself is very fast but its what your connecting with thats the problem.
  Anyway its going to be a long time before any of these high speed drives become affordable and the important thing is, do you really need the extra speed for what you are doing? bringing the price into consideration? Oh me, 1TB sata = 60 / 80 Euros 100MB/s + to read and 50/70 MB/s writing, compared to 1TB SSD 3200 Euros!!!!! 260MB read and 260MB write, prices here http://www.alternate.nl/html/categoryLis...l2=SSD&l3=SATA&
  
  At those prices fill your boots with sata HDD's and forget SSD unless you really need the speed.
  Or if you dont need the speed but have money burning a hole in your pocket, then say to yourself " I feel the need, the need for speed" LolYa SSD is moot I mean I would be happy with a 64GB drive for 200$ put all the ide laptop stuff(I have a HP 4200 tablet lappy I'd like to upgrade the HDD in but nothing looks good ><) is slow as sht and twice as constipated.
  
  I made me a HDD esata rack
  http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v632/z...ds/DSCF0036.jpg
  
  http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v632/z...ds/DSCF0040.jpg
  
  http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v632/z...ds/DSCF0039.jpg
  
  I plan on adding a Sata hub to it and clean up the wires, current have three 1TB and one 300GB HDDs in the rack, in the PC I have an old 40GB with vister on it and a 750GB that soon will haz win7black in it. Anyway I do not think Sata/Esata to USB3 will be a HUGE loss in speed,ect I was just worrying if I should blow 100$ on the sata hub this year or wait out and see what USB3 stuff pops up by Xmas of 010.

  12.11.2009 22:07 #11

• DXR88

  Zippy do you smell that, smells like hot wire.
  
  in anycase why don't you make something cleaner, you know like a remote storage PC. hell i have one and its plenty fast, considering the junks its assembled with.

  13.11.2009 03:13 #12

• bigdawg71

  USB 3.0 is pointless if u waste ur money on this u are a moron because good luck finding a motherboard that uses USB 3.0

  14.11.2009 10:17 #13

• ZippyDSM

  Originally posted by bigdawg71: USB 3.0 is pointless if u waste ur money on this u are a moron because good luck finding a motherboard that uses USB 3.0That goes without saying I am planing on waiting till I got a nice 6 port USB3 mobo :X

  14.11.2009 10:21 #14

• scum101

  I'm with you on that Zipp .. I only have like 3 mobos that have usb2 .. most are 1's .. and I'm a bloody miser anyway.. if it works why waste money on "penis substitute" speed addons.. a little patience in this world doesn't hurt (spoken like a girl who has wasted 12 damn years waiting on the health service)
  

  Yes, we give you 100% free, no strings attached email! Just send us your address and we will send you as much free email as you could ever wish for

  14.11.2009 10:35 #15

• ZippyDSM

  Originally posted by scum101: I'm with you on that Zipp .. I only have like 3 mobos that have usb2 .. most are 1's .. and I'm a bloody miser anyway.. if it works why waste money on "penis substitute" speed addons.. a little patience in this world doesn't hurt (spoken like a girl who has wasted 12 damn years waiting on the health service)LOL Well I tend to buy cheap anyway I am pissed my 180$ mobo is not as great as it should be but ya know screw it all I'll wait and see what new CPU/ram sets are available with USB3 mobos. There is just no real need to upgrade right now or even next year....
  

  Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy!
  Ah modern gaming its like modern film only the watering down of fiction and characters is replaced with shallow and watered down mechanics, gimmicks and shiny-er "people".
  http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  14.11.2009 10:45 #16

• joe777

  Hey zip you are correct. And remember if you really need the extra oooomph then ok, but if your hardware or software hasn't hit the wall, then why bother upgrading it!!! Its like buying a Bugatti veyron and finding out there are no public roads in the world long/straight enough to drive at 253.5 mph. Its got the cool and whao factor, for sure, but not usable. I still have some old PII and PII rigs setup as NAS and media server. Not hit the wall with any of them. Also have a dedicated gateway/firewall running on an Amd 486DX5/133 no probs. Dont get me wrong new tech is fantastic and I am all for it, if you really need it. I built a nice DAW with all the bells and whistles, cause I needed the power, but as for the rest, some people must have more money than sense. Or don't have a clue on the value of money:P

  14.11.2009 11:43 #17

• ZippyDSM

  Originally posted by joe777: Hey zip you are correct. And remember if you really need the extra oooomph then ok, but if your hardware or software hasn't hit the wall, then why bother upgrading it!!! Its like buying a Bugatti veyron and finding out there are no public roads in the world long/straight enough to drive at 253.5 mph. Its got the cool and whao factor, for sure, but not usable. I still have some old PII and PII rigs setup as NAS and media server. Not hit the wall with any of them. Also have a dedicated gateway/firewall running on an Amd 486DX5/133 no probs. Dont get me wrong new tech is fantastic and I am all for it, if you really need it. I built a nice DAW with all the bells and whistles, cause I needed the power, but as for the rest, some people must have more money than sense. Or don't have a clue on the value of money:PMy current rig is 2GB DDR2,C2D E7400 CPU at 2.80Ghz and the mobo is MSI PN7 platinum.
  
  I'd like to get a quad core,and a mobo that dose vitalization for win 7 xp mode but holly fck there's no point in spending 100-200 even 50$ on ram would not be that smart a move as in under 3 years better options will be out.
  

  Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy!
  Ah modern gaming its like modern film only the watering down of fiction and characters is replaced with shallow and watered down mechanics, gimmicks and shiny-er "people".
  http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  14.11.2009 11:47 #18