The Tiniest 128GB USB 3.0 Flash Drive Ever Is Smaller Than A Dime

[DroidModderX]

I can remember one of my high school teachers telling us about a 120 GB hard drive that was being developed that was smaller than a wallet! When I heard this i simply did not believe it. At that time the smallest hard drive I had ever seen was quite a bit larger than a wallet, and I couldn't imagine a hard drive that could fit in your pocket. Pretty soon we had 8GB flash drives! This was pretty exciting because you could fit hours of mp3's on one of these. Earlier this week Sandisk released a 128GB USB 3.0 flash drive that is smaller than a dime. This is pretty amazing to think that the memory actually takes up even less space as most of the space is the actual usb drive itself and not the memory. The read speeds for the drive are a blazing 130MB per second, and the drive can hold 16 hours of 1080p videos! If this stuff gets any smaller who knows it could pave the way for real biotech!

Via Sandisk

 

[kodiak799]

I think SD cards are (or should be) killing the USB sticks. I can get a 512gig full-size SD card that won't protrude, so until laptop makers stop including card readers I don't see the need for a USB stick. The SD card is a slick way to expand memory, just leaving it in there, until larger capacity SSD drives become cheaper.

 

[johnomaz]

I think SD cards are (or should be) killing the USB sticks. I can get a 512gig full-size SD card that won't protrude, so until laptop makers stop including card readers I don't see the need for a USB stick. The SD card is a slick way to expand memory, just leaving it in there, until larger capacity SSD drives become cheaper.

The problem is most desktops don't have built in card readers. I hate having mine out via cable, so messy and ugly. I prefer flash drives because I know no matter what computer I use, it will have a USB slot, can't say that about SD card slots. I really want to get one of these especially if the 130MB/s speeds are accurate.

 

[kodiak799]

The problem is most desktops don't have built in card readers. I hate having mine out via cable, so messy and ugly. I prefer flash drives because I know no matter what computer I use, it will have a USB slot, can't say that about SD card slots. I really want to get one of these especially if the 130MB/s speeds are accurate.

Ahh, that's a good point and makes a lot of sense. But it's the opposite with laptops - most still have card readers, and you can just leave it in there with no protusion for extra storage, which makes SD cards ideal for laptops. Although I think as SSD prices come down, companies will eliminate card readers from laptops (particularly in the ultrabook space). But micro-sd is here to stay, for a good while, in tablets and phones (maybe?).

 

[Vepaot]

This is how I make data portable.

 

[pc747]

This is how I make data portable.

mine is bigger

 

[hammerhead13]

You also forget that SD Cards are not a Bootable option so USB Drives still have Value and Every PC since '95 has USB plus now Tablets are in the Mix and if they only a have a MicroSD they usually are already in use do a USB Drive is a great OTG Option. I remember my 128MB PNY USB Drive I had and how Cool it was. I have a Full Size USB 3.0 128GB and its great. I also have a TIny 4GB like this one and on occasion have misplaced it. I will look into getting this though when its affordable.

 

[kodiak799]

Another good point, but you don't need more than 16gig USB stick for bootable windows.

 

[Jonny Kansas]

I don't find much need for removable storage really, since the cloud is my friend, but I don't like the idea of something with this much data (potentially) on it being this small. Too easy to misplace. SD cards are a non-issue in my phone because I rarely take them out, but I like my USB drives to be obvious when they're in my laptop so I don't forget to remove them and take them with me.

In response to the OP, I remember when we got our first computer with a 1GB harddrive and how my dad just kept laughing because "we'll never fill that thing up in a million years."

 

[94lt1]

I got one of these that were released a month or so back.. .. It works to make fdr's a lot quicker and tolerable.. Every week I erase the week befores.. And make a new backup..

 

[FoxKat]

mine is bigger

 

[FoxKat]

A funny post on another forum I came across when looking at 1964 mainframes... He talks about phones having more power than mainframes. Imagine how they compare now.

fferitt25
Ars Tribunus Militum

Registered: Apr 24, 2007
Posts: 2777

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:24 pm

Quote:
"The six models announced in April of 1964 had a performance range of roughly 25-to-1, with the largest model being about 25 times more powerful than the smallest. The smallest model could perform 33,000 additions per second; the largest more than 750,000 additions per second."

Something the size of a room churning by like molases on a cold day next to modern processors hitting 200 Gigaflops to 1+ Teraflops per second (on average desktop hardware). It's crazy that a cellphone has more processing power than these things did.

​

That's not a locker room. It's the first teraflop supercomputer!

“Tegra X1 packs more power than the fastest supercomputer of 15 years ago, ASCI Red. Run for 10 years by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratory, ASCI Red was the first teraflops (FLOPS – floating point calculations per second) supercomputer system. ASCI Red occupied 1,600 square feet and gulped 500,000 watts of power. By contrast Tegra X1 sips less than 15 watts of power.”
​

What is interesting is that for comparison, according to wikipedia, snapdragon 810 produces 389 GFLOPS and nVidia claims 365 GFLOPS for the Tegra K1, so I'm confused. Is the 810 more powerful than the K1, and if so, are they BOTH Teraflop processors?

 

[LoneWolfArcher]

I carry a 2 Petabyte EMC SAN array around with me. Admittedly I have a bad back.................