Best flash drive brand?

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
120
I'm between Sandisk and PNY, which is better and why and is there any better brand?

Edit: I'm looking for USB flash drives
 
Last edited:

matreya

macrumors 65816
Nov 14, 2009
1,286
127
Seems your criterion for choice is simply the cheapest brands available. I'd pick the Sandisk over PNY any day of the week, but IMHO you're better off with Intel, Samsung or Crucial SSDs. Intel is the dearest. I've got an Intel 730 I use to backup my main onboard PCIe SSD. I've also got Samsung 850 EVO SSDs I'm using in RAID0 as a disk for processing video. Both are excellent choices and I would recommend both.

I wouldn't touch PNY with a bargepole because they have inferior flash memory and controllers.
 

DeltaMac

macrumors G4
Jul 30, 2003
10,135
2,641
Delaware
I think OP was asking about USB flash drives. SSDs are a whole other device in many ways.
Flash drives are, IMHO, disposable devices. so I also tend to "go cheap" buying a few at a time.

All flash drives that I have used tend to be the quickest kind of storage to deteriorate to the point of being unreliable, usually after multiple erases. Work well enough for "first-time" copies.
For example, when I create a bootable OS X installer, I use a flash drive fresh out of the pack. Some that I have used for that purpose have been erased multiple times, and each copy process gets slower and slower.
All that being said, I usually have two in my pocket - one is a SanDisk, with multiple partitions for various OS X installs.
The other is a Kingston, which continues to work after 4 years. It has almost all OS X system updaters, from Tiger to Yosemite, and the main app updaters that I deal with most every day, such as MS Office, a few video converters, etc. I like to have everything in one place...
I get what suits my needs. I used to like OCZ, but had too many sudden failures. There's too many others to choose from.
I like cheap, and look for the good bargains during back-to-school sales. 32GB SanDisk for 6 bucks - who woulda thunk that would happen :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Retrofire

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
120
I think OP was asking about USB flash drives. SSDs are a whole other device in many ways.
Flash drives are, IMHO, disposable devices. so I also tend to "go cheap" buying a few at a time.

All flash drives that I have used tend to be the quickest kind of storage to deteriorate to the point of being unreliable, usually after multiple erases. Work well enough for "first-time" copies.
For example, when I create a bootable OS X installer, I use a flash drive fresh out of the pack. Some that I have used for that purpose have been erased multiple times, and each copy process gets slower and slower.
All that being said, I usually have two in my pocket - one is a SanDisk, with multiple partitions for various OS X installs.
The other is a Kingston, which continues to work after 4 years. It has almost all OS X system updaters, from Tiger to Yosemite, and the main app updaters that I deal with most every day, such as MS Office, a few video converters, etc. I like to have everything in one place...
I get what suits my needs. I used to like OCZ, but had too many sudden failures. There's too many others to choose from.
I like cheap, and look for the good bargains during back-to-school sales. 32GB SanDisk for 6 bucks - who woulda thunk that would happen :D
Thanks, yeah I should've specified USB. I edited my OP, so I should definitely stay away from PNY? Are turbo or 3.0 flash drives that much quicker?
 

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
120
Last edited:

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
120
Seems your criterion for choice is simply the cheapest brands available. I'd pick the Sandisk over PNY any day of the week, but IMHO you're better off with Intel, Samsung or Crucial SSDs. Intel is the dearest. I've got an Intel 730 I use to backup my main onboard PCIe SSD. I've also got Samsung 850 EVO SSDs I'm using in RAID0 as a disk for processing video. Both are excellent choices and I would recommend both.

I wouldn't touch PNY with a bargepole because they have inferior flash memory and controllers.
Can anyone help me with this?
 

robgendreau

macrumors 68040
Jul 13, 2008
3,341
259
  • Like
Reactions: matreya

Crzyrio

macrumors 65816
Jul 6, 2010
1,459
792
Everything seems great but some of the reviews say it is incompatible w Windows and does not show up as a removable flash drive when connected. Is this true?

The reviews I read were on Amazon where it is $32 for 64GB! http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-Flash-Drive-SDCZ80-064G-G46/dp/B00DZPUOUI
This drive is hands down the best drive out there. The USB 3.0 Speeds are just phenomenal. I have had 3 of these and will continue to buy them when needed.

SOME of the older versions of that drive were using a different controller, they still worked perfectly fine in Windows but they showed up as an internal drive. It doesnt make to big of a difference in the end.

All new ones should show up as a removable USB though as there are new restrictions that disallow what it was doing from Windows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weaselboy

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
120
This drive is hands down the best drive out there. The USB 3.0 Speeds are just phenomenal. I have had 3 of these and will continue to buy them when needed.

SOME of the older versions of that drive were using a different controller, they still worked perfectly fine in Windows but they showed up as an internal drive. It doesnt make to big of a difference in the end.

All new ones should show up as a removable USB though as there are new restrictions that disallow what it was doing from Windows.
Awesome, thanks. Will I benefit from these speeds if I have USB 2.0 ports? I'm not sure if that's what I have but my computer is 10 years old. When I bought it it was a top of the line loaded Dell.
 

Crzyrio

macrumors 65816
Jul 6, 2010
1,459
792
Awesome, thanks. Will I benefit from these speeds if I have USB 2.0 ports? I'm not sure if that's what I have but my computer is 10 years old. When I bought it it was a top of the line loaded Dell.
Unfortunately not, you will just get the max speed your ports can do in that case which is not necessarily true for all 2.0 drives. But even then they are solid drives.
 

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
120
Unfortunately not, you will just get the max speed your ports can do in that case which is not necessarily true for all 2.0 drives. But even then they are solid drives.
Does my comp most likely have 2.0 ports? If so is there a better choice for me?
 

Crzyrio

macrumors 65816
Jul 6, 2010
1,459
792
Does my comp most likely have 2.0 ports? If so is there a better choice for me?
If it was made after 2000, it likely has USB 2.0. Do you know what processor is has?

The extreme will still likely give you the best speeds on 2.0 but if you aren't to worried about speed, any 2.0 drive will work fine.

If the difference is less than $10, I would go for the Extreme. I see it here for $32. I have personally bought one for as low as $20 as well.

http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extre...d=1442362290&sr=8-8&keywords=usb+sandisk+64gb
 

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
120
If it was made after 2000, it likely has USB 2.0. Do you know what processor is has?

The extreme will still likely give you the best speeds on 2.0 but if you aren't to worried about speed, any 2.0 drive will work fine.

If the difference is less than $10, I would go for the Extreme. I see it here for $32. I have personally bought one for as low as $20 as well.

http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extre...d=1442362290&sr=8-8&keywords=usb+sandisk+64gb
Is the Extreme still going to be significantly faster than standard drives even on a 2.0 port?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Retrofire

DeltaMac

macrumors G4
Jul 30, 2003
10,135
2,641
Delaware
If you connect a USB 3.0 device to a USB 2.0 bus, that device downclocks to USB 2.0
It could (maybe) test faster, perhaps because of some difference in the storage controller on the device, but not in any significant way. It cannot go faster than USB 2 speeds while connected to a USB 2 port.
 

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
120
If you connect a USB 3.0 device to a USB 2.0 bus, that device downclocks to USB 2.0
It could (maybe) test faster, perhaps because of some difference in the storage controller on the device, but not in any significant way. It cannot go faster than USB 2 speeds while connected to a USB 2 port.
So what's the fastest USB flash drive I can get for a 2.0 port?
 

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
120
If you connect a USB 3.0 device to a USB 2.0 bus, that device downclocks to USB 2.0
It could (maybe) test faster, perhaps because of some difference in the storage controller on the device, but not in any significant way. It cannot go faster than USB 2 speeds while connected to a USB 2 port.
Is the Extreme going to be much faster than any 2.0 drives?
 

DeltaMac

macrumors G4
Jul 30, 2003
10,135
2,641
Delaware
No, the Extreme won't be "much faster" on a USB 2.0 bus.
It _might_ be measurably faster, but probably not noticeably faster, on a USB 2.0 bus (because it is a good quality drive)
The Extreme is a stable, fast drive. It is a USB 3.0 device.
If you connect it to a USB 2.0 bus, then it will be slower.
It will not work faster than the USB 2.0 bus allows.

It will be MUCH faster when connected to a USB 3.0 bus.
The computer has to provide support for a USB 3.0 bus before you get the faster speeds.
If you want to make sure the Extreme is "much faster" - then you need a computer that provides USB 3 ports.
 

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
120
No, the Extreme won't be "much faster" on a USB 2.0 bus.
It _might_ be measurably faster, but probably not noticeably faster, on a USB 2.0 bus (because it is a good quality drive)
The Extreme is a stable, fast drive. It is a USB 3.0 device.
If you connect it to a USB 2.0 bus, then it will be slower.
It will not work faster than the USB 2.0 bus allows.

It will be MUCH faster when connected to a USB 3.0 bus.
The computer has to provide support for a USB 3.0 bus before you get the faster speeds.
If you want to make sure the Extreme is "much faster" - then you need a computer that provides USB 3 ports.
Cool, thanks. Do you think 64 GB will be enough to store BluRay quality movies on, or will I soon be wanting 128?
 

DeltaMac

macrumors G4
Jul 30, 2003
10,135
2,641
Delaware
After a quick search - looks like the typical blu-ray DVD will rip to between 25 and 35 GB.
You can then re-encode that movie to something smaller, 1080p or 720p, etc - but you lose image quality.

If that's your main goal - to keep blu ray movies on a flash drive, then IMHO, it's not really practical.
I would always use a hard drive, or even better, SSD, in an external USB 3.0 enclosure.
1 TB of storage will be MUCH better, don't you think?
 

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
120
After a quick search - looks like the typical blu-ray DVD will rip to between 25 and 35 GB.
You can then re-encode that movie to something smaller, 1080p or 720p, etc - but you lose image quality.

If that's your main goal - to keep blu ray movies on a flash drive, then IMHO, it's not really practical.
I would always use a hard drive, or even better, SSD, in an external USB 3.0 enclosure.
1 TB of storage will be MUCH better, don't you think?
What? I thought a 1080p rip was 1-2 GB?
 

DeltaMac

macrumors G4
Jul 30, 2003
10,135
2,641
Delaware
Looks like fairly good information here - http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=216076

So, a really crappy 1080p (2 Hour movie) might be 2 GB.
To get decent quality, with no obvious artifacts - in other words, a decent watchable movie, the movie (1080p) would need at least 4 to 7 GB.
Blu ray quality - at least triple that amount - at least according to the various sites that I searched through.
If you don't care about the video quality, then you can re-encode with higher compression settings, and make the file a more manageable size.
Just don't ask someone else to watch it with you :D
 

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
120
Looks like fairly good information here - http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=216076

So, a really crappy 1080p (2 Hour movie) might be 2 GB.
To get decent quality, with no obvious artifacts - in other words, a decent watchable movie, the movie (1080p) would need at least 4 to 7 GB.
Blu ray quality - at least triple that amount - at least according to the various sites that I searched through.
If you don't care about the video quality, then you can re-encode with higher compression settings, and make the file a more manageable size.
Just don't ask someone else to watch it with you :D
Damn. I didn't know this. So BluRay is the best format by a long shot?
 

DeltaMac

macrumors G4
Jul 30, 2003
10,135
2,641
Delaware
You can search this info out for yourself, you know... :D

The difference will be greater as you view on larger screens. When you go bigger than 60-inches - there's just no contest at all.
 

Similar threads

Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.