Just for the record, a comparison test with different filesystems on different sticks:

http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information...-ntfs-vs-exfat/

Is it possible that Vista has re-added some speed to FAT32?

jaclaz

A few tests on Windows 7 x64.

Buffalo RUF2-R2G USB stick, Windows 7 x64, xcopy-ing I386 folder only, from XP SP3 from a folder on the internal hard disk, 5878 small files, 375MB total. Default cluster size for 2GB partition, tests repeated several times with format before each.

NTFS - 572.22 seconds

FAT16 - 169.17 seconds

FAT32 - 171.19 seconds

Quite slow Apacer 4GB stick:

NTFS - 696.48

FAT16 - 818.19

FAT32 - 903.17

Optimize for performance/removal doesn't seem to make any sugnificant difference in each case.

 

 

I buy this Transcend Jetflash 790 flash drive and fire Crystaldiskmark up:

 

 

 

Now it isn't that I like complaining, but those numbers look too good to be true. That'd be SATA III SSD speeds for ten euros.

 

To add weirdness the test was done on a very modest AM1 system with just an X4  2.1GHz CPU, and the drive was on 'Quick Removal' (not 'Best Performance').

 

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

EDIT - Never mind, I'm retarded and just mistakenly benchmarked the SSD instead of the flash drive.

 

 

THIS is the flash drive benchmark, about what should be expected:

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 201510 yr by TELVM