• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

newegg ADATA USB Flash Drives 3.2 Gen 1 32GB for $3.50 and 128GB for $8.50 when bought as combos

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

c627627

c(n*199780) Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2002
$17.49 for
5 x ADATA 32GB UV128 USB 3.2 Gen 1 Flash Drive (AUV128-32G-RBE)
https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails?ItemList=Combo.4521679
So 32GB for $3.50 a piece.

$16.99
2 x ADATA 128GB UV350 USB 3.2 Gen 1 Flash Drive (AUV350-128G-RBK)
https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails?ItemList=Combo.4521711
So 128GB for $8.50 a piece.

Looking forward to testing write speeds on these two 2022 models. Read speeds are not as important.

Shipping is free if both deals are added to cart, otherwise separately, the 32GB deal is free shipping but 128GB deal is not.


Get UV3xx models, they write 50% faster.
That's it.


ADATA 32GB UV128 USB 3.2 Gen 1 Flash Drive

is WORSE, much WORSE than

ADATA 32GB UV320 USB 3.1 Flash Drive

loopey :screwy:



There was no other way to figure that out than the hard way like I did. Specs on paper are worthless.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the deal!!! Stocking stuffers for the kids!

Read speeds are not as important (to me).
FTFY. :)

It depends on how people primarily use the drive, bud! I'd imagine users want to see information about Writes and Reads. There are PLENTY of valid reasons to want to know read speeds. It could be just as, if not more important to them. ;)

~ 1.5 years ago, these were $4 each. Let's see a third data set on the UV128 a year from now and see if they drop to $3. :rofl:
 
Have you come across many USB Flash Drives with fast write speeds, but with sub-par read speeds?
The cheap ones, and that's what we are talking about here, almost never write fast, even if they read somewhat okay.


Of course read speeds should be great, but the topic is dirt cheap USB 3 flash drives which, most of the time, write as slow as USB 2 drives, that's why they are almost never worth the savings.
Read is always faster than write, but it is very hard finding cheap USB 3 drives with decent write speeds. Almost impossible.
 
My bad. I thought this was a cheap USB stick thread in Cyber deals with a side of 'how C6 does it'. :bday: :chair::grouphug:

Have you come across many USB Flash Drives with fast write speeds, but with sub-par read speeds?
Yes. I've seen USB sticks come in under their rated read specs. Reads, like writes, are also a best-case scenario. Reads are important too. :)

Hopefully, these 'new' UV128s don't "pause" as the previous version did for $0.50 more. Looking forward to your testing!
 
Yeah, that was last year's model. The price has gone down.
I am of the opinion that if the write speed is there on these cheap drives, the read speed will be higher, considerably higher.

What would you use to speed test a flash drive in 2022?
 
All right, finding a decent USB Flash drive benching tool is a *nightmare*.

• Diskbench is malfunctioning.

• USB Flash Benchmark relies on a web site which is DEAD, in order to complete the sped test. Why did they make a test that can't complete unless internet connection is there!?

• Flash Memory Toolkit and MiniTool, four letter review: s-u-c-k.

• usbdeview could not handle the 128Gb Flash drive, too bad.

• UserBenchmark: morons made a program which doesn't work under Win8.1. Then I reboot into my Win10. Then it doesn't work unless connected to internet. Then they start the program in full screen mode instead of window mode. Morons. Then there are no settings to just use the USB Flash drive test, it just launches a FULL BLOWN lengthy analysis of your ENTIRE system. Morons!

That leaves SpeedOut and CrystalDiskMark.


So.


The problem with benching flash drives is that every program will have vastly different speed measurements.
I mean sure you test the flash drive five times to get the idea of average. But that average is UNIQUE to the specific program you are using.

So you must use the very SAME program to get the idea of differences between drives.

So we talk in percentage faster terms, rather than actual speed values.




So.

Last year's ADATA 32GB drives which cost fifty cents more BUT last year's version model 32GB ADATA UV320 is more than 50%, that's fifty percent FASTER than this years model 32GB ADATA UV128.

And as for their cheapo 128GB model - it is about as fast as last year's 32GB model.



So last year's 32GB writes about 66 MB/s vs. this year's 40 MB/s.
And the 128GB cheapo model writes between 60 MB/s or 70 MB/s, depending on benchmark program used.

Reads are considerably faster 100 MB/s to 140 MB/s and more so who cares [EarthDog], reads in these are just fine.
It's the fast writes that are difficult to find.
 
Midway through running ATTO - I figured it out, it's not last year vs. this year.
ADATA has UV1xx models and UV3xx models.

Get UV3xx models, they write 50% faster.
That's it.


ADATA 32GB UV128 USB 3.2 Gen 1 Flash Drive

is WORSE, much WORSE than

ADATA 32GB UV320 USB 3.1 Flash Drive

loopey :screwy:



There was no other way to figure that out than the hard way like I did. Specs on paper are worthless.
 
Last edited:
Technically USB 3.2 Gen 1 by definition is the same as USB 3.1


Because

• USB 3.2 Gen 1 is just USB 3.1 with 5Gbps transfer rate

• USB 3.2 Gen 2 transfers 10Gbps

• USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 transfers 20Gbps


But THIS is why USB naming system has completely failed us.
ADATA's USB 3.1 writes 50% faster than USB 3.2 Gen 1.


I mean there is just no way anyone would choose 3.1 over 3.2 Gen 1 with nothing else to go on. Psychologically. What a marketing trap. What a mess.
 
But THIS is why USB naming system has completely failed us....Specs on paper are worthless.
Not sure if it played a role, but both of these products appear to be released in 2019, which was towards the beginning of that transition to the new naming convention. One could have been released before the announcement (or packaging finalized for X thousand of them)/one after.

After searching all of the model numbers, there are (at least) two SKUs of the UV320. One is listed 3.2 G1, and one is 3.1. If I had to guess, I'd bet the SKU with 3.1 was older than the SKU with updated 3.2 nomenclature (or maybe I give them the benefit of the doubt, lol). But yeah, there are different SKUs with different naming conventions, it seems.

and more so who cares [EarthDog], reads in these are just fine.
lol, smarty pants communist... it's more than me!! C6's use case isn't the only way!! Thanks for posting the read data. :)
 
I just ran three different instances of Diskbench on an older Silicon Power 128GB Flash drive I had laying around. Worked fine, I just needed to be patient. The results look pretty consistent.

snip.png
 
I think as far as ADATA goes,
3xx models GOOD
1xx models BAD

To the poster above, are you just copying a simple tiny text file to USB from HD and using that to bench?
 
It's a 2 GB Wazaa text file, 2 GB of random characters. I use a 120GB when testing SSDs but this is just a small test to demonstrate Diskbench not only works with flash drives, but is also very consistent. Both transfer rate and transfer time are reported.
 
DiskBench went nuts on me when I tried other options, I wanted to give it a second chance and did what you did with a 2.43GB file.

You click on Start Bench and you have no idea what is happening.
Is it working? Nothing is spinning or flashing or indicating any progress that anything is actually happening.


Then it out of the blue finishes and reports UV128 32GB USB Flash drive to only have an 11 MB/s write.

It reports UV350 128GB USB Flash drive to only have a 12 MB/s write.


Whereas every other benchmark shows UV350 128GB to have 50% faster writes than UV128 32GB USB Flash drive.

So that is why DiskBench failed me.


DiskBenchNotWorking1.png

DiskBenchNotWorking2.png
 
Back