#Fatx format tool online windows#

We see the Pico-C Gold comes in at the top spot with the lowest time, with OCZ coming in laterДЄ little change up here with NTFS, weвЂ™ve got three Super Talent drives taking the top three spots and pushing the OCZ down a bit Same file used here again, same setup with FAT32 used as baseline for first graph: Now weвЂ™ve got the вЂTime to Copy FromвЂ™ the USB drives to my main hard drive, or C drive. Here of course higher scores or rates is better. Same thing here basically, just the other drives rearranging a bit.ДЄnd here are the Transfer Rates for those Times to Copy To the drives, rather self-explanatory, no comments needed really, same layout as the above graphs, but just showing the raw data rates. No surprises here, Super Talent and OCZ take the top spots.

Of course here the lowest time or score is the better one. The first graph is all of the file systems shown for the вЂTime to Copy ToвЂ™ the USB drives, again FAT32 was used as the baseline for the charting of the graphs. What you will see here is the Time to Copy to, Time to Copy From and the Time to Read From the USB drives, and youвЂ™ll also see the actual Transfer Rates in MB/s for those same tests. Now, IвЂ™ve got a lot more graphs coming up, these are the results using Diskbench from NodeSoft. With the ExFat file system we see OCZ and Super Talent retaking the tops spots once againвЂ¦ Here we see a bit of a different story when we change file systems to NTFS, Super Talent and OCZ drop down a few notches from the top spots. If you read the last comparison then youвЂ™ll know that OCZ and Super Talent were the top scoring drives there, not much has changed really, at least with FAT32 File System. Now hereвЂ™s the individual Graph for FAT32: better performance)ДЇirst graph I have for you is a combined graph with all three file systems present, I used FAT32 for the baseline as thatвЂ™s the default of most USB drives: The weighting of the results is not equal it represents the distribution of different files sizes as used on these devices (obtained through field research):ДЇor each of the four file sizes a Combined Index is then calculated, stating the combined performance in terms of Combined Operations Per Second, with respect to a mix of write, read and delete operations.Д¬ombined Device Index: is a composite figure representing an overall performance rating based on the average of the Combined Index figures over the four file sizes. The following characteristics are measured for each of the four representative files sizes of 512 Bytes (representing a minimal single data cluster file), 32kB, 256kB, 2MB and 64MB. The typical usage model for these devices is file operations, such as writing a file to the device, reading a file from it, and deleting a file, this benchmark exercises the devices in terms of these operations. This time around I only focused on the Combined index score and not the Endurance factor as that should have remained relatively the same.ДЄs a refresher, hereвЂ™s info from SiSoft about the benchmark and what it does: (ALL graphs found below can be clicked to open in a larger window)ДЇirst up weвЂ™ve got SiSoft Sandra 2009 SP2 Edition, using the Removable Storage Benchmark.

Nothing else was running during testing except basic system processes and anti-virus, I also ran Process Idle Tasks command as well to make sure system was freed up for testing.

#Fatx format tool online windows#

If you donвЂ™t know what ExFat is, well you can look HERE at the WiKi for a detailed explanation, but itвЂ™s basically FAT64, and proprietary to Microsoft and introduced with Windows Vista Sp1 So sit back, relax and continue on, IвЂ™ve got tons of graphs for you all broken down and separated by file systems and tests.ДЄll of the drives were formatted to each file system for testing, FAT32, NTFS and ExFAT, all testing was done separately of course. The reason for this is out of my curiosity and other people mentioned as well why not compare the file systems, so to satiate my curiosity and to give everyone as much information as possible I took a very large chunk of my time and dedicated it to this rather large article. IвЂ™ve been at this for quite some time now, and IвЂ™ve got a whole lot of information for you inside. IвЂ™ve taken the 8gig and 4 gig drives, nine in total, and formatted them FAT32, NTFS and ExFAT and ran all of the tests over again for a comparison of how the file systems work on the drives.ДЄnd yes I truly ran all of the tests over again, I recently upgraded to SiSoft Sandra 2009 SP2, so I needed to re-do all of those tests as well.

Ok, a little while back I ran a somewhat large USB Flash Drive Comparison with 21 drives compared, today I got part two of that comparison.