Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2.0 or 3.0 USB stick ?
- Thread starter max2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Depends on the files (size and number). But in 2017 I can't think of a good enough reason to skip buying a 3.0 and getting a 2.0 instead.
Seeing how USB-C is going to prevail, go for a USB-C or a combo drive that has both type C and type A port.
As for brand, sandisk would be nice, but, no matter what brand it is, MAKE SURE YOU BUY IT FROM A REPUTABLE SELLER. The amount of counterfeit usb sticks out there is scary.
Most uses for flash drives are for a few small files. The xfer speeds of USB3 will not make a big difference for most users. If you tend to use it for large files, USB3 would make sense. Price considerations are not that big of an issue as 3.0 prices are competitive with 2.0, but steer clear of "off" brands.
I would also check the specs for an explicit mentioning of the write-speed. Allmost all of the "up to xxxMB/sec" ratings are read-speed only and some sticks have a much much lower write-speed.
From personal experience I can also recommend SanDisk but I have to admit that I do not use USB-sticks much.
From personal experience I can also recommend SanDisk but I have to admit that I do not use USB-sticks much.
As stated above, getting a combo key (USB-C and USB-3) will help future-proof this purchase. The one I bought was about the same price as a conventionally-connected USB3 stick, and very small in size. This one is from Patriot. I have several from Patriot, probably because they strike me as a good deal at the time of purchase. They've been reliable at any rate.
The only reason USB 2.0 makes sense is either, A) you find one for an incredible deal, B) you happen to find an older USB 2.0 drive that uses the more resilient MLC NAND (as most 3.0 drives are now using TLC) - or, even better, you find one that uses the even more-more resilient SLC NAND, or C) you intentionally want the 2.0 protocol only because you are having issues with 3.0 causing interference with 2.4 GHz signals (such as your 2.4 GHz WiFi, or Bluetooth.)
Most modern flash drives use TLC NAND and are characterized by fast read speeds and horrifically slow write speeds. Literally, it is not unusual to find 150 MB/s read speeds, and 1.5-15 MB/s write speeds. (I find Kingston's TLC flash drives to often be the epitome of this issue with comically poor write speeds.) Some MLC-based drives are still available from Corsair (Voyager GTX), Transcend (JetFlash 780), Mushkin (Ventura), and SanDisk (Extreme PRO), but these are going to be each of the respective brands' flagship products with a 2-3x premium over their cheaper TLC alternatives. The fastest flash drives I have used are the Corsair Voyager GTX and SanDisk Extreme PRO - each of these drives are USB-A only, relatively large, and use an actual SSD controller (hence the larger size and hence how they can achieve upwards of 300 MB/s write speeds.) If I were to estimate how much faster the SanDisk Extreme PRO is for my usage compared to say one of the entry level SanDisk Ultras, I would estimate that the Extreme PRO is about 20-ish times faster, give or take.
The Samsung MUF-128DA2 is a relative newcommer and a kickass USB-C flash drive - as far as I know, this is the fastest USB-C flash drive on the market yet. This model might use Samsungs MLC or might use their TLC (Samsung is an exception to the rule of slow TLC flash drives and SD Cards - they have somehow gotten extremely high write speeds from their non-SSD TLC storage) - either way, it has reasonably good read speeds and reasonably good write speeds (think 150MB/s read and 100MB/s write). The casing is extremely solid, and the form factor and finish is pleasing. It's nowhere near as fast as the ExtremePRO or Voyager GTX.
With the low profile USB flash drives, there are several common tradeoffs - the first is generally speed. At least with the SanDisk, Samsung, Kingston, and generic low profile models I have used, the write speeds range from not good to abysmal - and, in some cases, the low profile USB 3.0 flash drives have slower write speeds than some of my full-sized USB 2.0 flash drives (however, this is also the case with many of the cheap full-sized USB 3.0 flash drives as well). The second is often heat, which these units can generate a significant amount of - in some cases, enough to cause burns. The fastest of these I have used is the SanDisk UltraFit, which I would classify as annoyingly slow but better than the other options in that category - with prolonged usage, it gets insanely hot. This may affect longevity.
Most modern flash drives use TLC NAND and are characterized by fast read speeds and horrifically slow write speeds. Literally, it is not unusual to find 150 MB/s read speeds, and 1.5-15 MB/s write speeds. (I find Kingston's TLC flash drives to often be the epitome of this issue with comically poor write speeds.) Some MLC-based drives are still available from Corsair (Voyager GTX), Transcend (JetFlash 780), Mushkin (Ventura), and SanDisk (Extreme PRO), but these are going to be each of the respective brands' flagship products with a 2-3x premium over their cheaper TLC alternatives. The fastest flash drives I have used are the Corsair Voyager GTX and SanDisk Extreme PRO - each of these drives are USB-A only, relatively large, and use an actual SSD controller (hence the larger size and hence how they can achieve upwards of 300 MB/s write speeds.) If I were to estimate how much faster the SanDisk Extreme PRO is for my usage compared to say one of the entry level SanDisk Ultras, I would estimate that the Extreme PRO is about 20-ish times faster, give or take.
The Samsung MUF-128DA2 is a relative newcommer and a kickass USB-C flash drive - as far as I know, this is the fastest USB-C flash drive on the market yet. This model might use Samsungs MLC or might use their TLC (Samsung is an exception to the rule of slow TLC flash drives and SD Cards - they have somehow gotten extremely high write speeds from their non-SSD TLC storage) - either way, it has reasonably good read speeds and reasonably good write speeds (think 150MB/s read and 100MB/s write). The casing is extremely solid, and the form factor and finish is pleasing. It's nowhere near as fast as the ExtremePRO or Voyager GTX.
With the low profile USB flash drives, there are several common tradeoffs - the first is generally speed. At least with the SanDisk, Samsung, Kingston, and generic low profile models I have used, the write speeds range from not good to abysmal - and, in some cases, the low profile USB 3.0 flash drives have slower write speeds than some of my full-sized USB 2.0 flash drives (however, this is also the case with many of the cheap full-sized USB 3.0 flash drives as well). The second is often heat, which these units can generate a significant amount of - in some cases, enough to cause burns. The fastest of these I have used is the SanDisk UltraFit, which I would classify as annoyingly slow but better than the other options in that category - with prolonged usage, it gets insanely hot. This may affect longevity.
Last edited:
i bought a low profile sandisk with the intention of loading it with music and leaving it in my truck. left it plugged in for a number of weeks before i noticed it gets HOT, it wasn't being used, just left plugged in to a port.
in my opinion the form factor is not worth the trade offs, i haven't used that drive since.
I agree that the heat is of concern and I cannot say that I am personally very comfortable using something that gets so insanely hot for prolonged periods - especially in regards to allowing it to operate when I am not present (which, ironically, is the very usage for which many of the ultra-compact flash drives are marketed for.)
I've noticed this too with that particular UltraFit model - even during idle periods, it gets HOT. During prolonged active usage, it can easily exceed 130F (and some Users have measured surface temperatures at high as 175F - amusingly beyond SanDisk' own stated limits of safe non-usage storage temperature, and way, way, WAY beyond the stated limit of maximum safe operating temperature of 135F!!!!) As this is enough to cause thermal burns, it is clearly something of concern to those with younger children or pets within proximity of the device, and IMO anyone purchasing this product should be aware of this beforehand. How this affects the longevity of NAND, or how this could affect the device it is connected to and raising the temperature of, I can't say, but I have noticed that there are quite a few reports of premature failure (this could easily have nothing to do with the heat and everything to do with lower quality materials used in most entry level consumer flash drives today.) But I can't say I would be comfortable leaving it in a device for a prolonged period, or using it at all when unattended.
SanDisk previously had a USB 2.0 version of the low-profile UltraFit called the Cruzer Fit, and I do not recall it getting nearly as hot. It was a reliable drive, although it had comically slow write speeds (not as an outcome of using USB 2.0, but as an outcome of the NAND itself.)
I find it very amusing how, since moving from USB 2.0 to USB 3.0, many flash drives have gotten slower in regards to writes. But Makers realize that emphasizing USB 3.0 is a great marketing strategy in that consumers automatically assume the flash drive is much faster, which it may or may not be depending on usage. Now with the shift from USB-A to USB-C occurring, Makers will probably market USB-C flash drives as if they were somehow faster than USB-A flash drives (which they are not), and will use the new USB 3.1 branding to imply the drives are faster than USB 3.0 (even though 3.1 gen 1 is simply the new terminology for the exact same protocol formally known as 3.0.) And sadly, I fear the few remaining higher quality flash drives on the market will likely go the way of the dodo, given most buyers don't really think about the quality or longevity of the product until the drive actually fails. :sigh:
Last edited:
That would depend on USB port speed.... You can buy USB 3.0 sticks but won't archive USB 3, it plugged into USB 2 computer. it will fall back to 480Mpbs.
Ya, i always found now USB 3 flash is teh one, the big bulky ones are put to shame... I have a few USB 2 drives that are in a dusty draw somewhere, and would prefer to buy newer 3.0 simmer ones. despite i could use USB 2.0....
Something about the bulky-ness just puts me right off compared to the newer drives.
