Quote Originally Posted by Raid
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]<span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:small;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]<span style="font-size:small;"]<span style="font-family:Calibri;"]There is no mention of what you used to determine the speed of transfer.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]<span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:small;"]


<span style="font-family:'Tahoma','sans-serif';color:#cccccc;font-size:10pt;mso-ansi-language:EN;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;" lang="EN"]



True. It was a rough, qualitative method.


Total Gb of images divided by time (stop watch).


Is it perfect? No, but it comes close.


I think what I was trying to point out was USB 3 is faster. Whether it was 60 Mb/s, 58 Mb/s or 62 Mb/s, it really doesn't matter.


Compared to 2.0, it's way faster.