Category Archives: USB devices

Benchmarking, Insider stuff, Recent Activity, USB devices, WED Blog

10 Gbps Flattens Device Speeds

Leave a comment

I’m still working and checking out the Lenovo ThinkStation M90a Gen 5 All-in-One (AIO). You can find my initial impression (and its specifications in Strange but Lovable Lenovo AIO, dated Jan 16). I’ve been playing with its many (6) USB-A ports and its sole (1) USB-C port. Because all of them are USB 3.2 Gen2, I’ve now observed that 10 Gbps flattens device speeds. That is, external drives that can run faster than 10 Gbps in a USB4, or TB3/4 capable USB-C port, all run at more or less the same speeds in a 10 Gbps USB-C port.

Showing that 10 Gbps Flattens Device Speeds

Take a look at the lead-in graphic. It shows CrystalDiskMark results for 3 USB storage devices — namely (from right to left):

1. Kingston DataTraveler Max 256GB flash drive USB-A
2. Maiwo 40Gbps USB4 enclosure with PCIe x4 NVMe USB-C
3. Sabrent 10Gbps USB 3.2 Gen1 with PCIe x3 NVMe USB-C

Notice further that the values are similar for all cells across all devices. As you’d expect the faster devices (NVMe vs. Flash) win out in the random reads and writes. Surpisingly, the older Sabrent enclosure with its slower NVMe beats the faster Maiwo/NVMe combination.

Unflattening to 40Gbps USB4 Ports

But because 10 Gbps is as fast as anybody gets to go via USB on the M90a AIO, all those values are constrained by channel speed. That’s what flattens the results on that machine. If run external an external NVMe on a USB4-equipped PC, things go faster for the bulk reads and writes (top half of CrystalDiskMark results). Check it out in the next screencap.

Bulk transfer speeds go up in USB4, but random read/write speeds decline. Go figure!

As a confirmed hardware skeptic, I’m inclined to file this under the “you win some, you lose home” heading. That said, I’ve seen better USB4 performance on the latest generations of laptops, including Snapdragon X and Intel Ultra models. Yet another reason why MS may not totally be smoking something when they proclaim 2025 as “the year of the refresh”…

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin
Benchmarking, Cool Tools, Hardware Reviews, Insider stuff, Recent Activity, USB devices, WED Blog

First TB5 NVMe SSD Enclosures Drop

Leave a comment

OK then, I knew it was coming. The Thunderbolt 5 (TB5) and USB5 (aka USB4V2.0) specs got released in September 2023. We’d been expecting 80Gbps devices (including docks, SSD enclosures, dongles, and  so forth) to hit the market by late 2024. Now it looks like that crop is starting to come in. I see an NVMe enclosure model available from Acasis at Newegg (MSRP: $279, limited time deal for $239 — it provides the lead-in graphic image above). I also see a Trebleet model available at Amazon ($199). So as these first TB5 NVMe SSD enclosures drop, I find myself asking: “When will I get a test PC with an 80 Gbps USB-C port?” Good question!

Impact When First TB5 NVMe SSD Enclosures Drop

According to the device info a Newegg and Amazon, these new enclosures offer double the maximum read/write speeds from external NVMe connections. But remember, the whole chain — that is, port to cable to enclosure to embedded SSD — must be ready to accommodate those blistering speeds. Right now, it seems that cables (which usually ship with high end enclosures), enclosures and NVMes (which should ideally be PCIe Gen 4×4 or better) are becoming available.

There’s a bit of a problem on the port side of the chain right now, though. At the moment, only the very newest laptops incorporate USB5/TB5 80Gbps capable USB-C ports. Basically, you’ll have to go out and buy something new to take this I/O chain into your Windows processing stable. And indeed, Qualcomm has not yet incorporated USB5/TB5 controllers into its chipsets, so such a laptop will not come from that branch of the Copilot+ PC family tree, either. Indeed, Copilot tells me the same is true for Intel and AMD based Copilot+ PC hardware right now, too.

Does anybody else see a possible mismatch emerging? I can’t help but believe that leading-edge AI capable PCs should also accommodate the fastest USB-C ports and related I/O chains. It could be that the PC market is about to get more interesting than Microsoft and OEMs want it to be… Who wants to choose between AI-capable and blistering fast I/O: buyers want both!!!

Stay tuned: I’ll keep digging!

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin
Benchmarking, Hardware Reviews, Insider stuff, Recent Activity, USB devices, WED Blog

ThinkBook Plus G5 External Storage

Leave a comment

I’ve been messing about with an interesting (and covetable) Lenovo hybrid laptop lately. it’s got an x86 PC for the keyboard deck, and a plug-in 15″ Android tablet that also doubles as a laptop display when docked with that deck. I plugged my fastest external USB storage devices into the free TB4/USB4 rated USB-C port and ran CrystalDiskMark. That gives me some basis to talk about ThinkBook Plus G5 external storage. I’m checking outUSB4 NVMe, TB4 NVMe, USB3.0 Msata, and USB 3.0 HDD storage devices.

ThinkBook Plus G5 External Storage Capability

I’m running CrystalDiskMark version 8.0.6 through its standard testing paces to see how these various devices all compare, in the same USB-C port and using the same USB4 rated cable. So far, what I’ve seeing is not bad, but not on par with other high-end Lenovo laptops or mini-desktops. (FWIW, I’ve also noticed that Snapdragon X Copilot+ PCs offer excellent USB-C USB4/TB performance, but only 5 Gbps capability on their built-in USB-A 3.2 Gen 1 ports.)

The internal SSD in the ThinkBook Plus G5 (I’ll abbreviate that as TB5 for brevity) gets reasonable performance. It’s a Samsung OEM NVMe MZAL81T0HDLB-00BL2 (vintage 2022, Gen4x4 M.2, middling performance). It does pretty well on large data transfers (~6GB read/4.7GB write queue depth 8; 3GB read/2.9GB write queue depth 1). On Random 4K reads, it’s somewhat less thrilling: 337.7MB read/264.5MB write queue depth 32; 60 MB read/113MB write queue depth 1). Those CrystalDiskMark (CDM) results provide the lead-in graphic for this story.

When I shift to external storage via USB, the story gets darker quickly:


Type   1TibRWQ8  1TibRWQ1   4KRWQ32  4KRWQ1
USB4   3062/447  1692/521   337/8    11/4
TB4    2615/530  2211/491   345/14   62/10
mSATA  465/331   436/121    138/20   23/2
HDD    118/117   117/52     1/1      0.4/0.4

On the whole, I’d have to say that I/O performance with external storage is NOT a strong suit for the otherwise interesting and occasionally excellent/amazing TB5. I see at least 15% better performance across the board for all those devices on the 2022 vintage Lenovo ThinkPad P16 Gen 1 Mobile Workstation and the 2023 vintage Lenovo ThinkStation P3 Ultra mini-Workstation. For example, here are the internal drive results from the 2022 vintage P16:

The Internal NVMe on the P16 is mostly 15+% faster across the board. Only 4KR/QD=1 is slightly less.

Note: the P16’s internal drive is a WD SN810 2TB NVMe (PCIe Gen4 x4 drive with performance nearly equal to the TB5’s Samsung OEM drive).

Space and Cost Are at a Premium, So…

In a hybrid device like the TB5, I have to believe that space and device costs are important elements to control. My best guess is that Lenovo went with more compact and possibly lower-cost USB circuitry than they put into those other two devices. Then again, the internal SSD could be slower than those used in the other devices as well. Both will impact overall I/O performance.

On the other hand, as I use the TB5 for surfing the web, doing workaday tasks, installing and running all kinds of software and tests, and more, I’ve not really noticed I/O as a bottleneck. Perception is vital to user experience, so these numbers I’ve shared may paint this fascinating two-in-one less positively than they should. Bear that in mind as you consider “buying this dream.” I’m reading that MSRP will be right around $2K for a 22-core Ultra 7-155H, 32GB, 1TB SSD model. It just may be worth it.

Next up: I’m going to take the Android tablet for a ride on its own, to see how it does as a detached tablet. Stay tuned!

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin
Insider stuff, Recent Activity, USB devices, WED Blog

USB4 Version 2 Devices Emerge

Leave a comment

I knew they were coming, but not as fast as this. I just wrote a newsletter item for AskWoody. Entitled Using USB-Attached Windows media (subscription required for full access) it talks about issues related to USB ports, cables and devices in getting the best available performance from external storage. Thanks to reader comments on that story, I’m now aware that Amazon is selling 80 Gbps USB cables. That’s a clear signal that USB4 Version 2 devices emerge in the marketplace. Let me explain…

Links Show USB4 Version 2 Devices Emerge

Thank goodness the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) has changed its approach to labeling cables and devices. As you can see in the Amazon product shot that serves here as the lead-in graphic, it’s clearly labeled with speed (80Gbps) and wattage (240w) maxima. This beats the heck out of USB 3.2 Gen 1 or USB 3.2 Gen 2. Shoot! It even shows maximum video resolution (16K) supported, too — on the right-hand backside info.

So far, though, 80 Gbps USB-C support appears limited to cables, and cables alone. I can’t find any docks, hubs, monitors or storage devices that support that data rate anywhere. And, FWIW, CoPilot agrees that while such things are coming, they’re not yet out. Here’s its reply to a query about 80 Gbps monitors, for example:

USB4 with 80 Gbps is cutting-edge, but mainstream adoption often takes a bit of time. Up to this moment, no 80 Gbps USB4 monitors are commercially available. But hey, tech innovation is like a speeding train. They’re likely not too far off!

How Soon is RSN?

I’ve been reading tech journalism long enough to remember Jerry Pournelle’s excellent Chaos Manor column in BYTE magazine many, many years ago. (It ran from the early 1980s until 1998.) He used the phrase “real soon now” (sometimes abbreviated as RSN) to poke fun at breathless promises of emerging technologies on the cusp of availability. That’s exactly where 80 Gbps USB4 Version 2 stands at the moment: on its way, but not here yet. Stay tuned (and check out those nosebleed cable prices. Ouch!). Don’t get hit by any speeding trains, either…

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin
Benchmarking, Insider stuff, Recent Activity, USB devices, WED Blog

Exploiting ReFS Speed Advantage

Leave a comment

I’ve been reading articles online about a supposed speed advantage for the Resilient File System, aka ReFS, in Windows. But I’m observing some caveats when it comes to exploiting ReFS speed advantage. Let me use a speed check from the Lenovo ThinkStation P3 Ultra as an example, mounted in a USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) NVMe enclosure. Quick examination makes the point nicely: one sees no difference vis-a-vis NTFS. Indeed the speeds shown are entirely typical of any UASP devices at nominal 10 Gbps speeds.

Exploiting ReFS Speed Advantage Requires 20 Gbps or Higher

Do the math: 982.75 MBps = 7,862 Mbps = 7.67 Gbps. That’s about as fast as a USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) device can go in a real-world situation, such as running the CrystalDiskMark benchmark. My basic point, therefore, is this: Don’t switch to ReFS for performance gains unless you have a device that can deliver 20 Gbps (or higher) performance. That means USB 3.2 Gen2 (20 Gbps) or USB 4/Thunderbolt 3 or 4 (40 Gbps).

So I tried the same enclosure, same SSD, same cable (all of these factors count) with both ReFS and NTFS. I found it easiest to use the “Create a Dev Drive” option in the Dev Home app to start the former. Disk Mgmt worked find for the latter. Here are those results, which do show ReFS has a speed advantage — but it’s pretty small.

If you compare the big block write speeds (upper 2 left cells) that’s where the advantage is noticeable. For the rest of the cells, it’s barely there.

True, But Nugatory

I’m going to have to mess around with faster SSDs and see if that helps. But so far, I don’t see the uptick as big enough to be worth a lot. That said, as 24H2 goes final I should try again. The P3 Ultra isn’t getting that update offer yet, and that’s usually for good reason. If this changes, I’ll update this post accordingly. Right now, it’s mostly a ho-hum level of added performance.

OK, so I tried it on a different PC — a ThinkPad P16 Gen 1 Mobile Workstation — running 24H2 preview version. It shows modest improvements over the P3 Ultra but nothing spectacular. I’ll keep checking and reporting back here. It’s possible there’s more to see than I can tell just yet. I’m going to run a Macrium Reflect Backup next…

 

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin
Benchmarking, Insider stuff, Recent Activity, USB devices, WED Blog

USB Adapter Beats Down-level Port

Leave a comment

In seventh grade, my math teacher was named Wayne Mackey. He had an amazing way of cutting and complimenting at the same time. I vividly remember him telling me “Mr. Tittel, you have an AMAZING grasp of the obvious” and puffing up, then collapsing. In today’s blog post, I’m returning to those roots as I observe that it’s better to pay the translation penalty involved in using a Type-A female to USB-C male adapter into a 40 Gbps connection, than to plug into a 5 Gbps Type-A port directly. Duh, but that’s why I lead off with USB adapter beats down-level port.

By How Much USB Adapter Beats Down-level Port?

The throughput difference one versus the other is easily obtained, using CrystalDiskMark as a means for comparison. Plugging the Kingston Data Traveler Max into the ThinkPad T14s Copilot+ PC, I get close to typical UASP rates when I plug its USB-A end into an $8 A-to-C adapter plug. To see that difference, check my September 6 blog Fast UFDs Need Fast USB Ports.

When I plug the device into the 5 Gbps USB-A port on the other side of that selfsame laptop, I get throughput numbers that are  much lower than those values. The adapter numbers appear left, and the direct plug-in results appear right, in the lead-in graphic above.

Those results definitely help me answer this question: is it worth $6-8 to buy a USB A-to-C dongle? I can’t help but answer that one in the affirmative. Yes, I know I’m showing an amazing grasp of the obvious here, but sometimes it helps to see what that means in vivid, undeniable detail. It was true in 7th grade algebra, and it’s still true today (59 years later).

Choose Your Ports Carefully…

There’s at least one other lesson to take away from this side-by-side comparison. It’s what I said in the preceding heading. According to the user manual, the USB-A ports on the ThinkPad T14s are USB 3.1 Gen 1, rated at a speed of 5Gbps (translates to 0.625 GBps or 640 MBps, much higher than what you see in CrystalDiskMark). Sigh.

The other item I take away from this encounter is to ask Lenovo: why put only 5 Gbps USB-A ports on that PC? I’m guessing the answer may be something like “Because that’s what Qualcomm gave us in the Snapdragon X chipset environment.” Sigh again…

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin
Backup/Restore, Device drivers, Insider stuff, Recent Activity, USB devices, WED Blog

Considering USB4 External Media

Leave a comment

It’s a classic trade-off in more ways than one: cost versus speed. I’m prepping for an AskWoody story about external media on Windows PCs. For me, the big trade-off when considering USB4 external media is higher prices for higher performance. “How much higher?” you ask: that’s what I’m in the process of figuring out right now.

Whole Device Chain Counts When Considering USB4 External Media

Every step in the device chain counts when going for the speediest external Windows media. The starting point from the PC end is the USB port itself. Ideally, it should be USB4 or Thunderbolt 3/4, and support 40 Gbps throughput. Next comes the cable: it should be labeled USB4, Thunderbolt 3 or 4, or 40 Gbps. Next comes the storage device. For me, that mostly means an enclosure housing an NVMe SSD. That enclosure should be USB4 or Thunderbolt 3/4, and the NVMe should be Gen 3 (PCIe x3) or higher.

At every step you pay more to attain the current pinnacle of performance. (I’ve not yet seen any 80 Gbps devices, but they’re coming. Copilot tells me Intel’s 14th Gen HX-series mobile CPUs “are starting to support this technology. “) A quick search at Amazon tells me you can’t buy USB5 cables, docks, and so forth yet. My best guess: we’re looking well into 2025 before it goes mainstream.

Right now, the jump from USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) to USB4 (and TB 3/4 equivalents) is getting cheaper, but still costs. You’ll pay US$46 for the cheapest USB4 M.2 enclosures right now (more like US$75 and up for other options). That’s double the cost — or more — of USB 3.2 Gen 1 devices (UASP: see below). Cables cost US$2 to $10 more for faster varieties, which isn’t too punitive. You can’t take advantage of anything faster than Gen 3 NVMes. Thus, you can buy 1 TB for US$55-80, and 2 TB for US$93-130 or so.

The “big spring” comes from the cost of either buying (for laptops and so forth) or installing (for desktops with open PCIe slots, and ASUS is the only vendor I can find who makes one for US$126) to gain a USB4 40 Gbps port to plug into. My testing so far shows this DOES make a difference, and often offers better performance than older and rarer Thunderbolt 3 or 4 capable USB-C ports.

For Me, Backup Is the Killer App

I’m always messing with PCs, so I need to back up frequently in case I shoot myself in the foot and have to replace a mangled installation. It happens to me at least 1-2 times a week in my testing and research, so this is no joke. I find the cost of USB4 external storage worthwhile because it drops the time to make a complete image backup into the 2-4 minute range. It takes anywhere from 7-24 minutes to back up to UASP-capable external storage. This equates to USB 3.2 Gen 2 10 Gbps capability. It shows up with max read/write speeds in Cystaldiskmark in a range from 1000-1100 MBps.

If you look at the lead-in graphic, which comes from NirSoft’s USBdeview, you can see it references the UASPStore.sys driver and service. I’ve actually found this to be a clearer way to recognize when a USB 3.x port can provide somewhat higher speeds. If your USB 3.x ports are older (and slower) they’ll usually show a USBstor.sys driver instead (and max speeds in CrystalDiskMark in the 400-500 MBps range).

You pays your money, and you takes your chances. That’s how things go with external USB-attached Windows storage — and much else in life!

 

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin
Backup/Restore, Insider stuff, Recent Activity, USB devices, WED Glog, Windows 11

Windows 11 Backup Request

Leave a comment

I have a modest request to make of Microsoft, where Windows 11 is concerned. Its new-to-11 Windows Backup facility uses Reset this PC as the basis for a new Windows image. It then rejiggers the Start Menu to show you which apps and applications need to be reinstalled. Hence my Windows 11 backup request. I see no file on the desktop or in the User’s folder hierarchy somewhere that lists  “missing” stuff.

What About My Windows 11 Backup Request?

According to the Answers.Microsoft.com something like this may be available in a file named removedapps.html. Or  perhaps “Removed apps.html” (with an internal space). If so, one could parse this data in PowerShell. Then, WinGet could reinstall most such things. (WinGet says it knows about 6,575 packages as I write this blog via (Winget search –source winget “”).count  .)

I’ve just made a Macrium Reflect image backup of a test PC, and I’m now going to restore that PC using Windows Backup. I’ll see if an html file shows up in the desktop (or somewhere else: e.g. windows.old) afterward. Let’s see…

Further Ruminations on Removed Apps

Turns out that when you go into this process, Reset this PC shows you the list of apps that need to be reinstalled. It also states “This list of apps will be saved to the desktop after reset.” That should do it.

List shows first 11 of 26 items, but does NOT allow text copy.

Just for safety’s sake, I screen-grabbed all items since this window doesn’t support text grab of the list contents. Good thing I did: when the machine booted, I could not find a file anywhere on the system that matched the string search “remo*app*.html” anywhere. Just for grins I also searched on *.html to look for all files dated today (September 9). Nothing relevant to removed apps there, either.

When in Doubt, Restore the Macrium Image

I eventually got back to where I started by disabling secure boot, booting into the Macrium Rescue media, then restoring the backup I made just before starting down this path.  Note: my PC wouldn’t boot from Macrium Rescue media unless I undid secure boot. Hey MS! Please fix this apps list issue: it makes Windows 11 Backup much less attractive or workable the way things currently stand.

The eventual part came from having to figure out I needed to turn off Device Guard before Secure Boot could itself be turned off. Then I had to steer around BitLocker stuff (a key is necessary before you can read an encrypted drive like the P16’s: I didn’t care because I was going to rewrite the whole shebang anyway). Then I had to wait for the backup to complete, go back and turn Secure Boot and Device Guard back on, enter the recovery key, and resume. Sheesh! A lot of time and effort to find out if Windows 11 Backup writes an app list to the desktop (or elsewhere). Too bad it does not…as far as I can tell.

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin
Cool Tools, Insider stuff, Recent Activity, USB devices, WED Blog, Windows 11

Copilot+ PCs Bring Better USB4 Support

Leave a comment

When I went to build recovery media for the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x Copilot+ PC last week, I dropped a Belkin TB3 dock into one of its 3 USB-C ports. Why? Because I needed a USB-A port into which to plug the Mushkin Atom UFD I targeted for that purpose. The lead-in graphic shows the dock at the “other end” of USB4 host router 1 (right-click the graphic and open in its own tab to see the whole thing). The next screencap shows the Hardware tab from Properties for that recovery drive (E:). Thus, I claim that Copilot+ PCs bring better USB4 support because until USB4 hubs and devices appeared in settings, users had to run a separate (and less informative) Thunderbolt app from Intel to see what was what. This has improved!

Copilot+ PCs Bring Better USB4 Support.e-drive-hwprops

The Mushkin E: drive is an older USB 3.0 Atom device.

So What If Copilot+ PCs Bring Better USB4 Support?

Though I’ve yet to see any laptops or PCs endowed with USB 4 2.0 (you can see version 1.0 in the lead-in graphic) this is now part and parcel of Windows 11 as well. It will also allow channel speeds to double from 40 Gbps (which 1.0 supports) to 80 Gbps (2.0 only, and primarily limited to video links). This probably doesn’t matter much right now, given that these top-of-the-line versions aren’t yet widely available. But for those who need the speed, this will matter once the peripherals and docks gain USB4 2.0 support.

I’ve got a Qualcomm Copilot+ Developer Kit SFF PC showing up here at Chez Tittel in the next day or two (today, even, maybe). I’ll be quite curious to see what Settings > Bluetooth & devices > USB > USB4 hubs and devices has to tell me about what’s inside and the docks and other devices I plan to hook up. Indeed, I’m going to start with a Lenovo P27u20 monitor, with its integrated TB4 docking capability. Hopefully, it will not only provide a great display, but also the means to hook up my keyboard and mouse. Stay tuned! These USB4 adventures will continue…

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin
Backup/Restpre, Cool Tools, Insider stuff, USB devices, WED Blog, Windows 11

Channel Speed Trumps Device Speed

Leave a comment

I kind of knew this already, but I wanted to prove it to myself through hands-on experience. Thus, I sprung for what Tom’s Hardware calls “the fastest SSD” around right now. It’s depicted in the lead-in graphic: The Crucial T705. It’s read/write ratings range from 13,600/10,200 MB/sec for big items to 1,400K/1,750K IOPS on random 4K items. That’s fast!

Why Say: Channel Speed Trumps Device Speed?

I know this NVMe drive would scream if I mounted it in an M.2 PCIe x5 slot on a motherboard. But I wanted to see if it made any difference if plugged into the M.2 slot inside a 40Gbps USB4 NVMe enclosure. Long story short: it doesn’t. It runs more or less indistinguishably from the 2022 model WD Black SN770 I replaced in the US$53 Maiwo USB4 fan-cooled enclosure.

Although the T705 is much faster than the SN770, those speed differences only count when the bandwidth from the SSD to the CPU is fast enough to actually show off such deltas. Because Lenovo sent me the Yoga Slim 7x with a smaller, slower C: drive device, I’ll probably end up plugging into that PCIe channel to see what it does as an internal drive.

But that’s a project for another day. Today, I have two “lessons learned” to share:

1. A PCIe x3 or x4 NVMe SSD is plenty fast enough for even the fastest, most expensive USB4 drive enclosures currently available.

2. The T705 at US$165 is about twice as expensive as the SN770 (and the SN770 2TB model at US$120 is a much better deal, $/GB-wise)

What can I say? I had to know. Now I do, and I’m moving on to other, better uses for the T705. I may have to use Linux to clone the existing 0.5TB NVMe in the Slim 7X, but I’ll figure out how to make that swap work. As I said earlier: that’ll have to wait for another day.

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin