Showing Results: Most Recent
Pros: All benchmark numbers are shown in MB/s unless otherwise noted
ATTO 2.47 (Bench32.exe) top speeds
Seq Read: 511.69 ... Write: 270.70
4K Read: 23.67 ... Write: 52.71
4K-64Thrd Read: 145.16 ... Write: 187.90
Acc.time Read: 0.078ms ... Write: 0.067ms
Total Score: 597
AS-SSD iops results
16MB Read: 31.98 ... Write: 16.92
4K Read: 6058 ... Write:13493
4K-64Thrd Read: 37161 ... Write:48102
512B Read: 12754 ... Write:15005
CrystalDiskMark 5.0.2 x64
Sequential Read (Q=32,T=1): 526.222 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q=32,T=1): 300.643 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q=32,T=1): 130.585 MB/s [31881.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q=32,T=1): 215.807 MB/s [52687.3 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T=1): 522.470 MB/s
Sequential Write (T=1): 302.445 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q=1,T=1): 19.956 MB/s [4872.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q=1,T=1): 62.885 MB/s [15352.8 IOPS]
Test : 1024 MiB [F: 0.0% (0.1/223.6 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2015/09/17 21:39:05
OS : Windows 7 Professional SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
Other Thoughts: I got this drive during a Shell Shocker deal for $68 delivered. I have no complaints about a drive that does this well for $0.28/GB.
It's serving as a secondary SSD to handle all of Windows temp files, applications' temp files (Java, browsers, Adobe, etc), and the Windows swap file. As well as any overflow when my primary C:\ (SSD) gets below 10% free space.
I certainly have no complaints about this drive. The box lists the top speeds as 500MB/s Writes and 550MB/s Reads when benchmarking with ATTO. My tests exceeded those specs.
Test system is an Intel Core i7-3930K @ 3.20GHz, 32GB RAM, Win7x64
This review is from: Rosewill RLFL-14003 - Cree XP-G R5 Heavy-Duty LED Aluminum Flashlight - 550 Lumens
Pros: - Nicely weighted / balanced. Almost an even 50/50 weight distribution
- Comes with an adjustable wriststrap
- 5 modes of operation. Half-press the button to cycle through modes.
- Comfortable grip. The grip pattern is not overly aggressive, so it doesn't leave an imprint in your hand if you hold it too tight or for long periods of time
- Notched ends to prevent it from rolling after setting it down
- Flat bottom cap if you want to stand it on its end and have it act as uplighting
Cons: - The "Waterproof" claim is misleading. If you look up the IP65 spec, you'll understand that this isn't something where you'll drop it in a pool and forget about it. It's more like "water resistant", so if you need to be out in the rain with it for a little bit, you should be OK, but expect that you're going to need to remove the battery cap and dry off everything.
I did my own test by removing the batteries and filling the battery chamber with paper towels. I then made sure the cap was tight and submerged the bottom of the flashlight in a mason jar of water. The water reached halfway up the body of the flashlight. 8 hours later I took it out, dried off the outside and then checked the battery compartment. There was wetness in there, but nothing that would really pour out. Maybe the total of a teaspoon based on the absorption of the papertowel. That being said, if the light was actually powered on and that same water ran to the head of the camera and dripped on the LED circuitry, the reliability of the flashlight may definitely be compromised. I suspect that either some teflon tape or a better rubber o-ring could alleviate this issue.
- The beam is absolutely NOT able to be focused. It is fixed. Or the assembly people torqued it so tight that it would require vicegrips to break it free.
- LED flashlights / torches have come way down in price in the past few years. That is not reflected in this unit. It's current price as of this writing ($30) can get you into a very nice tactical-based light with an adjustable focus and better light output.
Other Thoughts: I tested this against another Rosewill light, the RLFL-11003 (N82E16882021225) which is effectively the 3W, 220 Lumen model of this flashlight. I bought that light in June 2013 for $18. It's now listing at $30, the same as the current price on this 14003 model.
Most people don't have the gear to actually test lumen output, including myself. So unless you are reading a review from a lab, just about every review/reviewer will be subjective as to 'brightness'. What also makes subjective brightness difficult to compare between LEDs is the shape of the reflector and the color temp of the LED.
The 3-watt 11003 model seems just as bright in a completely darkened room. But I can only subjectively say that because 1) the color temp of the LED favors a bit warmer (more yellow), whereas the 5-watt 14003 is a bit cooler (more bluish). 2) The reflector on the 3W model is shaped different which causes you to have multiple circles of decreasing brightness, whereas this 5W model basically has an inner pinspot, a small mild halo around it, then the rest of the beam evenly diffused. So for illuminating a larger central area, the 3W reflector is the better choice. For illuminating a centered pinspot area, the 5W seems the better choice.
If the medium power setting on this 5W light steps it down to 220L, it's still difficult to tell the difference between the 3W@220L and this one. As such, a lumen-rating is not linear. This 550L light is not more than twice as bright as the 220L light.
They claim a distance of 550 yards visibility. Really, how is your average consumer going to check the claim about a range of 550 yards? Maybe shooting at a street sign in total darkness and seeing if you can catch a glimmer of a reflection? I don't think they mean "when viewed from 550 yards away" because almost any flashlight of moderate brightness you could see with an unobstructed view at more than 550 yards.
I put this light on a digital scale. With batteries, it weighed in at 1.98 lbs. That certainly doesn't put this into the realm of a light to be used for self-defense. For that matter, anyone needing a light to double for self-defense will be looking at more tactical-based lights, not consumer models like these.
All in all, this really isn't that impressive of a flashlight or "torch". It's definitely priced higher than other flashlights that offer much better light output. There's not a whole lot "wrong" with this light, it's just that there's not enough real selling points / features to justify it's price. It's really just a basic flashlight that favors fashion over function.
This review is from: TP-LINK Archer C9 Wireless AC1900 Dual Band Gigabit Router
Pros: Reviewed using latest firmware available as of this posting: Firmware 3.16.29, build 22-Jan-2015
- The lights aren't obnoxious
- The "Tether" app is not bad, but limited in it's usefulness since you need to be connected to the network for it to function.
- Physical button for powering on/off WiFi transmitters
- Physical On/Off switch. Although is this really a "PRO" when it's right next to the power cord which you can just as easily unplug? I guess so.
- I wish there was more to like, other than what should be expected in a top of line consumer router at this price point.
This next part may not really be a PRO or a CON, but I'm putting the info here because there's plenty of space available... :-)
I tested throughput using a Netgear A6210 AC1200 802.11ac wifi adapter (Newegg N82E16833122618). It was connected via USB3 to my mediaserver in the basement. My router is on the second floor and hardwired to my desktop at 1Gbps. Each file transfer originated and ended on an SSD to eliminate any disk-based latency that could impact throughput and completion times.
It is stated that running your router and wifi adapter in 'mixed mode' can impact overall performance, both in signal quality and throughput. Mixed Mode is when you have both 2.4 and 5GHz bands available, as well as supporting 802.11a/n/ac protocols. (802.11.ac is only available in the 5GHz spectrum.)
I ran my tests in the following configs:
- Router Mixed Mode / Adapter Mixed Mode
- Router 802.11ac Only / Adapter Mixed Mode
- Router 802.11ac Only / Adapter 802.11ac Only
Depending how you view it, this router and wifi adapter combo did not show a significant difference between the combinations, so that may be good or bad.
I used various utilities to test network throughput, but when it comes down to it, people want to read specs they can relate to. So I simply used a stopwatch to record how long it took to perform repeated copy functions across the network, along with specific router and adapter settings noted above. Since there wasn't enough of a discrepancy in the times per configuration, the numbers presented are accurate within a couple seconds of each config.
The first test was a DVD-movie structured data set (VOB, IFO, etc). It consisted of 41 files/folders totaling 5.75GB
Averaging the multiple tests, it took an average of 3:48 to complete the copy.
The second data set was a collection of 4,573 .PNG files totaling 4.8GB. That took an average of 4:04 to copy.
Cons: - Power cord only 5ft
- Wallwart is a bit bulky / larger than expected
- First page of online setup doesn't go to "Quick Setup" as expected. You need to click "Quick Setup" tab if you are following the included Quick Setup guide.
- USB3 and Wifi on/off button on the side, USB2 and everything else on the back.
- Not a fan that I am forced to stand it upright; can't lay it down and can't wall-mount it.
- Difficult to fully secure antennas because how they fit through frame
- Doesn't take much to get it to fall forward
- DHCP reservations are still a PITA to configure. You need manually input each IP and MAC, versus just being able to choose them from your list of active DHCP connections.
- Had an occasional issue with DHCP no longer functioning, so I'd have to reboot the router. Interestingly, I have (2) of their Archer C2 series and they exhibit this as well. I can't say with certainty that the current firmware addresses this issue since I haven't had any new devices to add.
- Updating the firmware erases all the settings of the router. You first need to backup your router config, which is easy enough to do.
- Guest network is EXCEPTIONALLY flakey.
- Passwords must contain at least one number. I didn't find this documented anywhere. Lots of head-scratching and trial & error to determine this.
- 2.4GHz guest network speeds never got above 4.1Mbps. Averaged 3.2Mbps across all my testing.
- Throttling Guest network requires turning off NAT Boost.
- 5GHz Guest seemed to run at slightly less than half the cap allowed. For whatever reason, the capped speed is just under half of what you'd expect.
2048Kbps = ~.98Mbps
4096Kbps = ~1.78Mbps
8192Kbps = ~3.3Mbps
16384Kbps = ~7.72Mbps
Removing the cap allowed the 5GHz Guest network to run at full speed. 2.4GHz still a problem.
- The USB drive functionality needs better support / access options. Upon first inserting the stick, it takes a couple of minutes for the router to configure itself and parse any data on the stick. I didn't see anywhere where it gave a status of its progress. It eventually shows up in the Router's status screen for the USB Disk or under USB Settings. The only way to access it is via its IP address. This is very cumbersome and non-intuitive for your average user. Your best bet if you get that far is to add it as a Windows "Network Location" and/or map a drive to its IPAddress\<share> name, typically IPAddress\volume1 from what I determined during testing.
- Nowhere near USB3 speeds
- I also tested streaming HD video from my mediaserver running PlexServer to my Roku 3 running the Plex client. Both my mediaserver (802.11ac adapter) and Roku are wireless. For whatever reason, it always seemed to start choking around the 1hr mark with HD content, which was rated around 8Mbps. Dropping down to 4Mbps 720p allowed it to continue without issue. Not sure why that was happening.
Streaming content in general from my Roku 3 or FireStick HD didn'
Other Thoughts: Whenever I have more CONS than PROS for a device, it's not going to get 3 stars or higher.
This router functions fine as dual band router when used for it's basic functionalities. It really starts to fumble when you want to get more advanced. Personally, I don't think enabling a "Guest" network to be all that advanced anymore, but when that portion doesn't function well, I certainly can't hold out hope for the way-more-advanced functions.
Given that I've seen similar head-scratching issues with the two Archer C2's that I own, I'm really starting to think that TP-Link is not putting as much Quality Assurance Testing in their home products as they put into their commercial/professional line of products, which is a shame because I've always been a TP-Link advocate for the home.
The one time I engaged TP-Link support, I was met with a fast and friendly response. Unfortunately, the reply pointed me to a FAQ that didn't fully match up to the current firmware/settings, so it was of no use.
There are also the TP-Link user forums which seem to be fairly good, but forums are often hit or miss because they aren't entirely, if at all, staffed with TP-Link employees.
I can only imagine that manufacturers are loading all these advanced features into consumer-grade routers because they need to have some reason to roll out something newer/better. The problem I see is that most of these features you'd only use in a business/corporate environment. And what I've found through personal trial & error is that buying consumer-grade equipment for a commercial-grade job is rarely going to work in your favor. (Referencing the two Archer C2's I purchased for a small business and eventually had to replace.)
Creating an efficient, thoroughly tested router for the home would be excellent! This unfortunately would take months & months of testing and the product release and life-cycle just doesn't allow for it. There's a reason older products are referred to as "Tried & True" and I'm just not seeing this with all the newer networking gear coming to market for the home consumer. How can a company like TP-Link really allocate resources to creating a stable platform or firmware for existing products when it's rolling out new products so often? Such is life if you want to be the person with the newest gadgets.
With all that being said, I do have to note that even though the 802.11ac standard has been ratified for some time now, you're still going to find various pieces of hardware working at different capacities. My specific testing of 802.11ac was done using a Netgear A6210 AC1200 adapter (Newegg N82E16833122618). This of course could impact certain throughput measurements. However, it won't impact general functionality of the router and that's really where this router stumbles. Subsequently, it very much misses the sweet spot of getting the most bang-for-your-buck.
Display Name: Andre L.
Date Joined: 08/10/04
Some manufacturers place restrictions on how details of their products may be communicated.