Showing Results: Most Recent
Pros: Read speeds are where they claim to be, running Crystal Disk Mark, I hit about 82MB/s using the built-in SD card reader on my Dell Latitude E7450 using the FAT32 file system format and copying a host of random files off of the card and on to my Samsung SSD (to ensure no bottlenecks). I've got some other NTFS measurements in the Other Thoughts below as they are a bit lower. Running a benchmark on FAT32 also yields a lower speed result just for the record.
It's worth noting that there are some cons, hence the 4 eggs.
Tossing this into my Raspberry Pi2 lowered the boot time ever so slightly from the older Class 8 SD cards I had lying around, so that's kind of nice. Also running FAT32 for this test. About two seconds over all booting to Rasbian from off to desktop.
Cons: Write speeds are pretty low. Best I could do with FAT32 and random file moves was 1.83MB/s on average over 5 attempts with different media (documents, mp3s, mkvs etc). Not terribly impressive if you ask me.
It's very clear that this card isn't optimized for fast writes at all. Also worth noting that it completely chokes on random write tests especially as file size increases. I suppose I expected as much in that regard.
Little bummed that I can’t get Crystal Disk Mark to test this card on writes even once using FAT32. I’m going to guess that this is something to do with the file system format as well as the card itself.
That being said, writing to the card under normal circumstances works, it just isn’t quick at all.
Other Thoughts: I kept my benchmark file sizes low as this is probably most common when reading and writing files from an SD card. Larger file sizes cause problems with FAT32 as it is. Attempting larger file sizes really really kills the performance so don’t plan on using this card for large files even if you’re running NTFS.
FAT32 Format using 50MiB test file size:
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 71.550 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : hangs during testing
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 6.261 MB/s
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : hangs during testing
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 70.250 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : hangs during testing
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 5.251 MB/s
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : hangs during testing
NTFS Format using 50MiB test file size:
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 73.404 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 11.978 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 5.953 MB/s [ 1453.4 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 0.560 MB/s [ 136.7 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 75.086 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 18.870 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 4.549 MB/s [ 1110.6 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 0.413 MB/s [ 100.8 IOPS]
Test : 50 MiB [D: 0.3% (0.1/29.0 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]
OS : Windows 7 Professional SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
This review is from: ASUS RP-AC52 AC750 Repeater / Access Point / Media Bridge
Pros: For what it is, the AP looks pretty good. In fact, it looks better than most of the gigantic wall wart style wifi repeaters that I’ve recently tested (looking at you TP Link, beige is kind of out as a color for electronics). Relatively small size compared to most similar products. For those who care, it has a nightlight built in that you can turn off with the touch of the front face. LED activity lights on the front are relatively dim so as not to light up your entire living room with flashing blue.
If you happen to have local music stored on your phone or at home on your network, the Ai Player is pretty neat. The Android version of the app is relatively easy to use and it picked up the AP on my network in about three seconds (can’t complain there). Alas, you’ll see me mention this in the cons as well since there are some drawbacks to this feature.
Overall, the web interface is very easy to navigate and intuitive. I would imagine that even most networking novices would be able to just plug this in and get it going in little to no time at all. If you’re really wanting easy, there’s the option of WPS though I’m not a fan of this technology.
The AP has a decent automatic channel optimization mechanism. For AP Mode, it managed to find the channel (11) farthest away from the master AP in the house (3).
I’ll say that the speeds aren’t terribly good (see cons). However, they seem to remain consistent and reliable over the week that I’ve been testing. Having multiple devices connected to it doesn’t seem to make the speed for each device any worse so I suppose there’s something positive in there. If you don’t have a terribly fast network behind the scenes or you really just need some wifi coverage in the garage (my scenario) this should suit your needs well enough.
Cons: The speeds aren’t really that great in repeater mode. I’ve tested a few other devices that do better along these lines. You can see what I mean down below in the Other Thoughts section.
This wouldn’t be all bad if one could get really good speeds by switching to AP mode. However, you’re hitting a hard limit there due to the 10/100 NIC that this device uses. Once again, if you’re not running a full gigabit network behind the scenes, this may not be a noticeable issue. However it really pales in comparison to my NetGear WAPs used in the house.
I think the takeaway from this is as follows. If you’re looking for a quick and cheap repeater to just extent wifi for a couple devices, this would work just fine. However, there are a ton of these products in the same price range, some of which are better and many of which are worse. That being said, if you’re looking for a WAP, I’d recommend steering clear in favor of an actual WAP with a 10/100/1000 port for ethernet on it, or modifying a cheaper router to perform the same function for less money. It’s also waaaay easier to hide these kind of devices as these wall wart things are really limited in where they can reside.
Other Thoughts: Speed tests all averaged over three runs
Google Nexus 6P:
5GHz: 12.9 mbps
2.3GHz: 20.6 mbps
Dell Latitude E7440:
5GHz: 18.7 mbps
2.3GHz: 19.5 mbps
Google Nexus 6P:
5GHz: 30.5 mbps
2.3GHz: 20.9 mbps
Dell Latitude E7440:
5GHz: 32.5 mbps
2.3GHz: 24.7 mbps
The backbone of my network is a gigabit switch into a gigabit router all of which are connected to Google Fiber.
Pros: I really like the simplicity of design for Corsair power supplies. The “wrinkle” paint that the unit is covered with is tough and not easily scratched. The cables are well sleeved with the mesh for the CPU and main 24pin power connectors secured under the heatshrink. I can appreciate that the modular cables are the same as most other modular units. I had no problem just pulling the old modular supply out and slotting the new one in with the existing modular cables (from a Corsair CX600M) I really like the ribbon modular cables that come with Corsair supplies and found them easy to work with. As with previous Corsair units, I found the modular connectors for this one easy to plug in with a nice secure clip. The connections are also easy to get to even when it’s bolted into the case.
All cables are plenty long even for my NZXT Phantom case (which is quite large, placing the hard drives very far away from the PSU).
Quite short which helps with space, although that’s more to do with the wattage of this unit than anything specific.
The fan in the PSU appears to be high quality and isn’t very loud at normal operation.
With my build, the computer draws about 68W on average when connected to the power meter. This is right in line with the power supply I pulled out of it which was also an 80+ bronze certified unit.
I will take the time to say that I appreciate the minimal logo design on these units as well.
Cable ties included is a nice gesture and they are big enough for most of the job.
Cons: Not that I necessarily expected it, but there isn’t any point where the fan on the PSU shuts off while in operation. I realize most in this price range don’t, so that’s more of a design quibble than anything further.
The 24-pin cable is almost too long even for my massive case, requiring me to find a place to zip tie up some of the excess.
The 4/8-pin CPU connector is annoying. I really wish they’d leave a little extra space between the connector and the end of the heat shrink tube. I honestly miss the flat ribbon cable version on the CX600M that this unit replaced. There’s just not a lot of room to get the other half of the connector out of the way if you only have a 4-pin module on your board.
That’s really all of the cons I can think of.
Other Thoughts: It’s a no frills unit, but it does the job and does it well. I’ve always had really good luck with the CX series and have three in operation in various NAS devices and computers in my house. They are all still running (including the one that I pulled for this test).
Testing using a Kill a Watt Power meter from P3
OS: FreeNAS 9.2.1
Processor: AMD A6-5400K APU
RAM: 8GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3
Drives: 4x 4TB WD Green drives