Industrial Deals HPC Save up to 90% on textbooks Womens Ski Trip Essentials nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Weekly One All-New Fire 7, starting at $49.99 Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Garnet Jewelry Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon TheGrandTour TheGrandTour TheGrandTour  Three new members of the Echo family Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop now

on May 28, 2016
I purchased this thumb drive for the sole purpose of having my Windows OS stored in case of needing a reinstall/reformat. I have used numerous sticks from Patriot, Sandisk, PNY among many others and ADATA has been my go to brand as far as price/performance goes. Does not feel cheap like other sticks (ie: Sandisk Cruzer). The read/write speeds surpassed my expectations and love the fact that I can stick the cap on the back of the drive so it wont get lost. Overall VERY happy with this purchase, ADATA has a customer for life. Thanks to Amazon Prime I ordered this at 11:00 AM and received it at 6:00 PM the same day, i'm speechless.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on July 24, 2012
1. SPEED. After all, that's probably the main reason why you're thinking about buying this. I've had mine for almost a week now. Been using it everyday, moving a bunch of files from one computer to another to test the speed. It's pretty fast. As others have noted and as the spec indicated, I got 20-25 MB/s write speed when connected to the USB 3.0 port on the computer. Writing 10 files totaling 5 GB took under 4 minutes. Other test copies yielded similar results, whether it was one large file or many small files. This is nowhere near the fastest of the bunch, but this is almost twice as fast as any USB 2.0 sticks that I've used. Surprising was the write speed of this stick on USB 2.0 ports. I got speeds almost as fast as USB 3.0 ports. Writing 8.2 GB took about 7 minutes 30 seconds on several tests (~18 MB/s).

2. HOUSING. The spec says that it is made of aluminum. And it feels like aluminum. It's very light but feels sturdy. The cap and the butt end are made of plastic.

3. DESIGN. I think they should stop making USB sticks with caps. In too many cases, the caps will eventually get lost. I much prefer a cap-less design, whether it's an exposed tip or a slide. If they must have caps. then it should somehow be attached to the USB stick. This is especially bad on this stick. There is a loop on the butt end, presumably so that you can attach a lanyard through it. But if you use a lanyard, then the cap no longer fits on the end. Someone wasn't thinking at ADATA. Hello?!? McFly?!? But other than this defect, the overall look is actually very handsome. Pretty.

As of this review (July 2012), this was the cheapest 16GB USB 3.0 flash drive that I could find online. For the price, I can't complain too much. I'd probably buy a few more in the next couple months. Unless Kingston came up with a USB 3.0 drive with this design: Kingston Digital DataTraveler SE9 (DTSE9H/16GBZ).
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on December 30, 2012
If you're looking to save a few bucks, this ADATA 16GB Pro is OK.... but it's slow.

I compared it to a USB 3.0 16GB SanDisk Extreme and 32GB Lexar JumpDrive. My test was unscientific but repeatable. Here's what I did under Mac OS X 10.8.2 Mountain Lion on a 2012 MacBook Pro 13":

- Partition each flash drive as one Mac HFS+ volume using the Mac Disk Utility.

- Placed a folder on my desktop which contained a 4.38GB iso file and 3.68GB iso file. These are just iso images for the Mac OS X and Oracle Linux 6.3 operating systems. The file details are not important but the folder which I called TEST contains these two large files totaling about 8GB.

- Drag the TEST folder to the USB 3.0 flash drive being evaluated and time how long it took to copy the TEST folder.

5-min. 40-sec: ADATA 16GB Pro
3-min. 50-sec: Lexar 32GB JumpDrive
2-min. 14-sec: SanDisk 16GB Extreme

- Repeat the test by deleting the TEST folder from each USB 3.0 flash drive and repartition each. Start the same test again.

Results were repeatable to within +/- 2 seconds for each USB 3.0 flash drive and the ADATA repeatedly comes out slowest of the bunch.

Like I said, not a true 'benchmark' or scientific test but in real world use copying large files, the ADATA Pro is one slow pig. The SanDisk Extreme is more than twice as fast!
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on January 13, 2013
This is a great USB 3.0 drive for the money. Coming in at $1/GB, this drive has a good value for the capacity, and it has good performance to boot. There is no question that external storage benefits the most from the new USB 3.0 standard. This lets flash storage really stretch its legs when it comes to sequential read/write performance. However, do not expect USB drives to perform in the same manner as hard drives. Flash drives, especially more value-oriented ones like this Adata drive, tend to have great read performance and pretty dismal write performance. This is primarily because the flash controller on the device itself is nowhere near as advanced or fast as the controllers present on Solid State Drives. I benchmarked this drive using the free Crystal Disk Mark utility, and here are the results:

Sequential Read: 90.449 MB/s
Sequential Write: 25.029 MB/s
Random Read 512 KB: 85.194 MB/s
Random Write 512 KB: 1.853 MB/s
Random Read 4KB QD1: 8.033 MB/s
Random Write 4KB QD1: 0.075 MB/s
Random Read 4KB QD32: 6.699 MB/s
Random Write 4KB QD32: 0.037 MB/s

As you can see, read throughput is excellent across the board, beating 5400 rpm drives handily and beating 7200 rpm drives in all read scores except sequential. But the write speed in all categories is pretty sad everywhere except sequential write. This is an inherent disadvantage of cheap flash storage, and is in no way unique to this drive. This is all to say that you shouldn't expect a USB drive to perform like an SSD just because they are both flash-based.

For those who are not as tech savvy, here's a breakdown: This is great for moving and accessing large files like videos, pictures, and .zip files. It is great for accessing (reading) all files. It is slow when transferring small files, like lots of documents, for example. The good news is, you typically transfer small amounts of these files, so you will likely not notice too slow of performance.

In conclusion, this is a drive that performs on par or better than comparably priced USB drives. It has a nice metal framed body with a cap that sticks on the back of the drive so you don't have to risk losing it when you plug it in. If you want a high-performance drive, you may want to try something like the SanDisk Extreme series. However, bear in mind that the same limitations apply, you will just see better performance there. However, when considering that performance USB drives cost about 50-60% more per GB, this is a great deal for a drive that still enjoys high throughput thanks to USB 3.0

P.S., USB 3.0 drives are great for running Live copies of Linux variations. I've run and installed about 3 distros from this drive. Just in case you needed some usage ideas!
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on May 18, 2016
I bought this nearly four years ago and it hasn't failed me yet. It's a nice feeling to know you can trust a device to hold your data. I also, bought a Corsair Flash Voyager GT USB 3 at the same time. It was faster than the ADATA but failed in less than a year. Data in the Corsair became corrupted within months of storing them. I've repeated the test 4 times with same results, so I will be using their 5 year warranty soon.

The ADATA is not the fastest USB 3 drive nor a big name brand, but its reliability has proven to me I can trust my data with it.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on March 18, 2013
Update 4/12/2013:

I now consistently get 21MB/s transfer speeds even when I transferred 3.67GB. It's below the advertised 25MB/s but 21 is alright.

DO NOT BUY THIS PRODUCT if you're transferring large files!

My laptop specs: Dell Inspiron N411Z, Intel core i5-2450M CPU @ 2.50 GHz (4 CPUs), 8GB RAM, Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit, USB 3.0 (two ports)

I copied a 5.87GB folder (5.87gb x 1024mb = 6,010.88 MB) from my laptop to this flash drive.

Time taken: 25:01 minutes
Do the math: 6,010.88 MB / (25min x 60sec) = That's 4.00MB/s or 240.44MB/min.

This is extremely below the advertised 25MB/s copy speed!!!

Very angry customer!

I own two 1.5TB USB 3.0 external hard drives and they consistently copy at 55-75MB/s (still terrible and not close to true USB 3.0 speeds but these speeds are still decent), but this flash-drive is absolute garbage!

MADE IN TAIWAN? If you transfer large files like me then you get 4MB/s.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on September 9, 2013
I've usually stuck with mainstream thumb drives by S@nDi$k or P_y, but this manufacturer was highly rated by many reviews for its speed, low cost, and reliability, so I thought I would give it try, especially since I have several USB 3.0 drive ports.

During the short period it did work, read speed was indeed fast: CrystalMark had it at 91 mb/sec. Write speed was an unimpressive 24 mb/sec. I was certainly hoping for a little more on that end. A 7gb file still took over 5 minutes to write (Of, course this may have been a function of the failing drive.) I also noticed it got quite warm while in use. Also a function of the defect? All of this was of little regard, however, as the drive failed after two days use. I've still got some of those old (slow) thumb drives by the aforementioned manufacturers that have to be at least 3 or 4 years old and still work fine, but for their limited capacity and slower read/write speeds. But, at least they do work. Will see how the ADATA replacement does, though I'm a bit skeptical at this point.

09/26/13 Update: upgraded one star to three star review as replacement device seems to be functioning as advertised. Still, there shouldn't be a device failure after two days, so I only give a three star rating, especially given the slow write times. Heat build-up doesn't seem to be as severe an issue so I would assume this to be a function of defective first device. If yours runs especially warm, I would be concerned with respect to imminent (future) failure of the drive. Write times are still on the disappointing side, though I can see that if one is to use this as an OS boot drive, the read times are more than sufficient for such a use. Writing small .doc and text files really isn't an issue, either, only large video/graphic and image files.
CrystalDiskMark Test as follows:
4000 MB sampling on Windows 7, SP1 x64
Sequential Read : 98.775 MB/s
Sequential Write : 23.482 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 88.995 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 1.851 MB/s
11 comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on July 31, 2014
VERY DISAPPOINTED with this drive. I bought the 8GB model because it is advertised as having 100MB read and 50MB write speed. The reality is QUITE different, clocking in at only 10 MB/s write speed and around 90 MB/s read speed (the read speed is acceptable for me, but the write speed is NOT).

NOW, some may challenge my setup and try to point to some mishap in my configuration ... well, I'm using the 2013 MacBook Pro released late in the year, with a 500 gig SSD drive as the only other drive besides this thumb drive. My SSD drive clocks in at 600 MB/s write and 750 MB/s read using "Disk Speed Test" from the app store ... therefore, this system is more than capable of maxing out this thumb drive, yet the drive comes in at disappointing write speeds. I don't know why they advertise the speeds as being 5 times as fast as they are. They really should fix the product description.

And just in case your wondering, YES, I have clocked other USB 3.0 devices on this same system, and as one example, my Western Digital 2TB Passport drive clocks in at right around 100 MB/s read and 100 MB/s write ... so I know that the USB port is fully capable of moving data at high speeds.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on November 16, 2015
One thing that really misrepresents the product is that all of the reviews for different sizes of sticks are lumped into one category and it's not really explained that different sized sticks should be treated as ***completely different models***. The mistake people often make is in assuming that because all the sizes available have the same S102 model number, that the performance will be the same for all of them. This is not the case, internally each size will be using different components. The write speeds for the 16 gig model are actually quite poor while the write speeds for the 64 gig model are decent for the price.

Here's some real world performance data (not a benchmark, but real world performance results from something you would actually do (which I did because... well I needed to install Debian on one of my laptops)). The write speeds for the 16 gig stick are rather unimpressive... quite poor actually. I wouldn't buy this particular size again. So the application? Writing an iso of the Debian test image ("Stretch") to the USB stick using dd (a *NIX command line). For each test I had the stick plugged in to the same USB 3.0 port. At the end of the write, dd reports elapsed time, number of bytes written, and average write speed.

64 gig version: "3981279232 bytes transferred in 151.434400 secs (26290455 bytes/sec)" so that's about 25.07 megabytes per second (real megabytes, not marketing megabytes... a real megabyte is 1024^2 bytes not 1000^2 bytes which artificially inflates disk sizes and performance... computers are binary which means they always work in a base 2 numbering system, not base 10)

16 gig version: "3981279232 bytes transferred in 2097.574186 secs (1898040 bytes/sec)" and that's a pretty abysmal 1.81 megabytes per second.

It took the 16 gig model almost 13.9 times longer to complete the same write as the 64 gig model. I do expect a smaller stick to be a little slower, but this is quite a huge difference.

On the Pros side... I love the aluminum case.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on August 27, 2013
Read great reviews on this thing, unfortunately I overlooked the one reviewer that spoke about the 8 GB write speeds falling way under par (11.4 MB/s on average vs. the claimed 50 MB/s). The reviewer also posted the image of the almost exact speeds I was getting. Wish I had seen his review prior to purchasing; would have saved me a lot of trouble. I actually thought there was something wrong with my USB 3.0 ports and I called Dell technical support to help to see if they could resolve the issue(Updating drivers/bios etc). It was only until I tried it on another computer that I realized it must be the actual USB drive. I couldn't believe it given all the rave reviews, but alas most/all were for the higher GB.

Read speeds were close to advertised(at 86 MB/s), but the write speeds definitely warrant a lower rating. Fortunately, I won't be using the flash drive that often, but it would have been nicer to have faster write speeds. It's not even close to 50 MB/s. Hopefully anyone thinking about the 8 GB will read this and then decide.

Bottom line: I could have spent $2 more on the 16GB version and gotten equal read speeds, twice the storage, and higher/more accurate write speeds (claimed 25 MB/S and confirmed to be around that)
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse