Sorry for the delay, here's my report.
As noted above, I used the G2 and cloned it to a G4, then tested for speed.
Program operation (i.e., navigating menus, calling up programs, downloading upates, etc) are about the same.
When you copy files, same.
I did this by using the SAME 3.0 port for both sticks, to see what difference it made. 1GB folder of a bunch of smaller files copied instantly with either stick. That makes sense, as if there's enough RAMM the machine will just copy it to RAMM and then to the stick.
The reviews say that you see the difference in larger files, and that the differential in speed diminishes the more files you have, i.e., a lot of 100MB files totalling 1GB will copy about the same, versus a single 1GB file, which allegedly is faster with the G4.
My concern with the G4 is that I already lost one to write protect. That is a defense mechanism the company (any company who makes a flash drive, not merely Kingston) builds into the stick, so that if sectors are starting to go bad, it will halt your ability to write. Read is still fine. So that ends up meaning you use the sticks to archive, not edit and transport.
My G4 that went bad was within 9GB of being filled up, was the same as the stick used in this test. It had all my brainoutdotnet data on it, so I was miffed. I've never had that problem with the 2.0 sticks, so suspect the faster speed is the cause of the eventual failure at write. I don't think speed matters as much to me as the ability to keep writing.