USB 3.0 still faster even in 2.0 port?

[ssal]

I have a 5-6 year old laptop that has only 2.0 ports. I have two CF card readers, 3.0 and 2.0.

It seems that when I plugged the CF into the 2.0 card reader using this old computer, the images took much longer to load or refresh. But with the 3.0 card reader, the image would show, and come into focus in about 1/4 or less of the time required with the 2.0

I thought that the 3.0 card read would only be speed-beneficial on a machine with 3.0 port.

No?

 

[johnb35]

Yes the 3.0 reader will only be faster using a 3.0 port. However it's possible your 2.0 reader is old and slowing down.

 

[ssal]

Yes the 3.0 reader will only be faster using a 3.0 port. However it's possible your 2.0 reader is old and slowing down.

Yes, I was thinking that could be the only explanation.
But how does a piece of solid state hardware get old and slow down?

 

[Laquer Head]

Yes, I was thinking that could be the only explanation.
But how does a piece of solid state hardware get old and slow down?

Just like us, we get old and slow down.. same idea really..Age does that to things.

 

[Geoff]

My money is more on the USB 2.0 card reader just being much more cheaply made, which doesn't come close to the maximum speed of USB 2.0. The difference between USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 are the number of pins in the USB port, so it's not possible for it to be faster because it's USB 3.0.

 

[Agent Smith]

But with the 3.0 card reader, the image would show, and come into focus in about 1/4 or less of the time required with the 2.0

So it's faster?

Is this USB? I mean if you have USB 2.0 only and you are trying to get better bandwidth just because the card reader is 3.0, it won't happen. The USB port speed won't go any faster.

 

[ssal]

As Geoff said, it could be a cheap old 2.0 reader, while the 3.0 reader was of better quality.

 

[JaredDM]

Yes, I was thinking that could be the only explanation.
But how does a piece of solid state hardware get old and slow down?

Actually NAND flash memory is very unreliable and not only slows down but breaks down as it ages. A 32GB NAND is actually more like 48GB in reality to accommodate all the XOR and wear leveling patterns necessary to just ensure you don't lose data as parts of the NAND wears out during normal operation.

 

[ssal]

Actually NAND flash memory is very unreliable and not only slows down but breaks down as it ages. A 32GB NAND is actually more like 48GB in reality to accommodate all the XOR and wear leveling patterns necessary to just ensure you don't lose data as parts of the NAND wears out during normal operation.

You'd lost me. What does that have to do with a card reader? It is the same CF card I am using.

 

[JaredDM]

You'd lost me. What does that have to do with a card reader? It is the same CF card I am using.

Your comment: "how does a piece of solid state hardware get old and slow down?" sounded pretty generic to me.

As for the reader, it's likely just a slower device from day 1 regardless of the interface type.

 

[Geoff]

Your comment: "how does a piece of solid state hardware get old and slow down?" sounded pretty generic to me.

As for the reader, it's likely just a slower device from day 1 regardless of the interface type.

I believe his comment about "solid state hardware" was referring to the card reader itself, but that's useful information about solid state drives.

 

[Okedokey]

Pretty sure PCI devices are NOR flash not NAND.

 

[JaredDM]

The OP was talking about CF cards, they most definitely use NAND not NOR flash. Only the first few CF cards built in the early 90's used NOR, but that's back when they were only a few KB to a few MB in size. Long before the mainstream had heard of them.