Your research for the CF Roundup was incomplete: Pretec, a manufacturer with a history of producing higher-capacity CF media before anyone else, has been producing a 12GB CompactFlash card for some time now; it's also 80X media to boot. It will set you back as much as a complete gaming desktop system, of course; right now the MSRP is still $5000, but I think I saw it for $1700 somewhere. Pretec's two or three press releases about it were widely reported. A search in Google for "12gb cf" will educate you. Pretec also produces a 4GB SD card, greater capacity than anyone else AFAIK. I was surprised Pretec wasn't even included in the review.
The price-point for 12GB CF seems a bit unrealistic still for most uses.
4GB SD are available from other brands now and at more normal price levels, between $250-300 to start. Key with these is the ability of the device using them to support the capacity and filesystem.
Also, why not use an IDE to CF straight adapter?
You don't know for sure that that device you're connecting in the middle can actually write at the max speed the card is capable of. A few years ago, Lexar was packing their own adapters in with their cards, saying people had to use them to get top speed. And that was back when top speed was 4, 8, 16x.
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this "Endurance Factor" pretty useless. It sounds to me like they're saying that, because a card is faster it will be written to more often and thus, not last as long. For digicam users this is not relevant; we will be writing to it the same number of times regardless of its speed -- I don't take more photos just because the CF speed is faster!
I agree! Sure looks a bit too simple of a test to have any real value.
If you're thinking of branching out, may I suggest Flash MP3 (+FM Tuner) Players, the cheap kind, not iPod Shuffle kind. I spent the entire last night going through tens of cheap ass "reviews", just to find out ... not much. Maybe I was just looking in all the wrong places, but not being a big portable music fan (buying a xmas gift), I just didn't know where to look and google wasn't terribly useful either and neither were forums.
I ended up buying a derivative of this here thingy:
[in slovene, but there are some nice pictures to look at, really]
In short, it's fine at playing MP3s (though to be honest, I didn't have anything to compare it to), but sloooooooooooooowwwwww at transferring files. That same old Full Vs. High speed USB 2.0 trick.
I know typically most people with use USB card readers, but perhaps it might be worth testing with a IDE<->CF adapter to see if anything comes out differently.
BTW Said adapters + 8GB CF rock if you want to make a truly silent, no moving parts computer...
Delkin has a CF to CardBus adapter that on my laptop delivers 10MB/s (reading Sandisk Extreme III cards). A PCMCIA adapter would only deliver a tenth of that speed... (granted, it costs significantly less, but its usefulness is limited on 1GB+ cards)
I agree about CF-IDE testing, and was hoping we'd see a listing of which cards do or don't support DMA. To the *embedded* systems crowd, that would be pretty significant.
Don't most cameras (new ones that is) use SD cards? I'd love to see a review of them. I just bought a 150x Transcend card, but it was hard to find any real reviews anywhere.
Point and shoot digicams do use SD or other small media predominantly. However, CompactFlash still reigns supreme in the digital SLR world; the small Nikon D50 and a similar Pentax are the only DSLRs that take SD exclusively, though there are a few others that can use an SD card as a backup along with a CompactFlash card.
Point and shoot digicams do use SD or other small media predominantly. However, CompactFlash still reigns supreme in the digital SLR world; the small Nikon D50 and a similar Pentax are the only DSLRs that take SD exclusively, though there are a few others that can use an SD card as a backup along with a CompactFlash card.
First of all... Given any sub-2GB storage device for a camera, the choice is easy: FAT16 filesystem with the largest possible cluster size.
Because most of the time, you'll be storing big picture files, the big cluster size won't waste nearly as much space as a big allocation table! (do the math, if you have 512 Byte clusters, you'll end up with a pretty big allocation table)
Thirdly, any file benchmark with random write behaviour is flawed in this test. When using a camera, all files will be stored sequentially. There's very little seeking taking place... Thus there's no need for a separate HDTach test. The file copy to media should suffice plenty. Only one of the tests will provide a relevant picture. (hard to tell if they provided the same numbers...? Different graph styles have been used!)
Finally, why leave the Sandisk Extreme III cards outside this test? They are the absolute best... (and have been for over a year!)
Speaking of absolute best, Sandisk's record was just broken by Twinmos (140x) and ATP ProMax (150x). For that matter, CompactFlash record is already broken by MMC Plus cards, which goes up to 200x, with the announced 266x from Pretec.
A sequential test would be nice, but i doubt it would change the results a whole lot. It would be good for us CF camera users, though. But AT is a computer site... not a Camera site. They tested using CF's using computer standards and techniques, for computer storage more or less.
Also, AT only tests what they get sent. If Newegg didnt send them a Sandisk Ex III, they dont get to test one. They aint rollin in the dough.
I really liked the idea of CF roundup. Its something ive never seen AT do, and with motherboards so close in performance, new CPU's performance predictable, and video cards all based on reference designs, its good for AT to branch out into some new stuff for us to read.
Well actually, we don't ONLY test what NewEgg or any other manufacturers/retailers send us. We specifically asked for these models for our first 1GB CompactFlash roundup...yes, first! So there is more to come in the flash media area.
As for how we benchmark and why we do it the way we do on computers instead of using digital cameras, many who use flash media for more than just digital camera storage, like MP3 players and PDAs, use USB based card readers interfaced with their PCs. We benchmark this way to compare the performance of each card relative to the other products in the article.
As for all new areas we journey into we greatly appreciate any constructive criticism to improve our processes.
"use USB based card readers interfaced with their PCs."
I hope you realise that performance varies greatly between most card readers. (e.g. few of them supports the latest PIO modes added to the CF specs a year ago)
I would've started by benchmarking the readers. My top candidates are Lexar's latest Firewire based reader, SanDisk latest USB2 reader, as well as Delkin's CardBus based reader.
I doubt a reader that can read multiple card formats performs well when compared with the ones I mentioned.
(Slightly related pet peeve: Laptop tests that give a laptop "+" for having a CF reader, but doesn't bother testing its speed -- My notebook's built-in reader is useless)
FYI, I just noticed that the RiDATA CF cards available on newegg are all 80x - the 1GB model is $60 plus S&H.
The tested RiDATA Pro-52x looked to me like the most attractive blend between performance and expected life expectancy. I'm guessing the 80x is faster and shorter lived. (But how short is short, really?)
At my workplace, we use CF cards for all sorts of things that don't involve cameras. I, for one, am happy to see random access tests. I agree that they should be in addition to sequential tests to give camera users some info.
I agree that the graph types need some work. Specifically, the spline (or whatever interpolation function it is) used on page three, "Real World File Copy Test to Media," connects dots between different cards. This interpolation tells us nothing and only confuses the situation by connecting what should be disassociated information. For example, there's no information provided by looking at what the spline says occurs "half way" between an Edge and a Kingston card. If Purav were to switch the graphing inputs around such that the X-axis is file size and make separate lines for each card, then, assuming he'd picked an appropriate interpolation function for the "Real World" transfer times, we might be able to tell something about transfer times for file sizes in between the three tested. If not, then drop the spline and just plot the dots.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
24 Comments
Back to Article
macraig - Sunday, December 25, 2005 - link
Your research for the CF Roundup was incomplete: Pretec, a manufacturer with a history of producing higher-capacity CF media before anyone else, has been producing a 12GB CompactFlash card for some time now; it's also 80X media to boot. It will set you back as much as a complete gaming desktop system, of course; right now the MSRP is still $5000, but I think I saw it for $1700 somewhere. Pretec's two or three press releases about it were widely reported. A search in Google for "12gb cf" will educate you. Pretec also produces a 4GB SD card, greater capacity than anyone else AFAIK. I was surprised Pretec wasn't even included in the review.Mark Craig
mindless1 - Sunday, December 25, 2005 - link
The price-point for 12GB CF seems a bit unrealistic still for most uses.4GB SD are available from other brands now and at more normal price levels, between $250-300 to start. Key with these is the ability of the device using them to support the capacity and filesystem.
tygrus - Saturday, December 24, 2005 - link
Merry Christmas and a Happy new Year.artifex - Saturday, December 24, 2005 - link
Also, why not use an IDE to CF straight adapter?You don't know for sure that that device you're connecting in the middle can actually write at the max speed the card is capable of. A few years ago, Lexar was packing their own adapters in with their cards, saying people had to use them to get top speed. And that was back when top speed was 4, 8, 16x.
Glitchny - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
i know they cost like 2x as much as the ultra 2s however i ould have liked to see them included in the tests to see just how fast they arePauli - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this "Endurance Factor" pretty useless. It sounds to me like they're saying that, because a card is faster it will be written to more often and thus, not last as long. For digicam users this is not relevant; we will be writing to it the same number of times regardless of its speed -- I don't take more photos just because the CF speed is faster!AtaStrumf - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
I agree! Sure looks a bit too simple of a test to have any real value.If you're thinking of branching out, may I suggest Flash MP3 (+FM Tuner) Players, the cheap kind, not iPod Shuffle kind. I spent the entire last night going through tens of cheap ass "reviews", just to find out ... not much. Maybe I was just looking in all the wrong places, but not being a big portable music fan (buying a xmas gift), I just didn't know where to look and google wasn't terribly useful either and neither were forums.
I ended up buying a derivative of this here thingy:
http://www.s1mp3.org/en/index.php">http://www.s1mp3.org/en/index.php
I posted my review of it here:
http://users.volja.net/lukaakul/cny512-usb20.htm">http://users.volja.net/lukaakul/cny512-usb20.htm
[in slovene, but there are some nice pictures to look at, really]
In short, it's fine at playing MP3s (though to be honest, I didn't have anything to compare it to), but sloooooooooooooowwwwww at transferring files. That same old Full Vs. High speed USB 2.0 trick.
Ecmaster76 - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
I know typically most people with use USB card readers, but perhaps it might be worth testing with a IDE<->CF adapter to see if anything comes out differently.BTW Said adapters + 8GB CF rock if you want to make a truly silent, no moving parts computer...
highlandsun - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
Agreed. Actually I'd like to see a test using a notebook and a CF to PCMCIA adapter, since that was my primary interface. I hate USB adapters...BikeDude - Sunday, December 25, 2005 - link
Delkin has a CF to CardBus adapter that on my laptop delivers 10MB/s (reading Sandisk Extreme III cards). A PCMCIA adapter would only deliver a tenth of that speed... (granted, it costs significantly less, but its usefulness is limited on 1GB+ cards)--
Rune
mindless1 - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
I agree about CF-IDE testing, and was hoping we'd see a listing of which cards do or don't support DMA. To the *embedded* systems crowd, that would be pretty significant.Hikari - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
Don't most cameras (new ones that is) use SD cards? I'd love to see a review of them. I just bought a 150x Transcend card, but it was hard to find any real reviews anywhere.ProviaFan - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
Point and shoot digicams do use SD or other small media predominantly. However, CompactFlash still reigns supreme in the digital SLR world; the small Nikon D50 and a similar Pentax are the only DSLRs that take SD exclusively, though there are a few others that can use an SD card as a backup along with a CompactFlash card.ProviaFan - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
Point and shoot digicams do use SD or other small media predominantly. However, CompactFlash still reigns supreme in the digital SLR world; the small Nikon D50 and a similar Pentax are the only DSLRs that take SD exclusively, though there are a few others that can use an SD card as a backup along with a CompactFlash card.BikeDude - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
First of all... Given any sub-2GB storage device for a camera, the choice is easy: FAT16 filesystem with the largest possible cluster size.Because most of the time, you'll be storing big picture files, the big cluster size won't waste nearly as much space as a big allocation table! (do the math, if you have 512 Byte clusters, you'll end up with a pretty big allocation table)
Secondly, write performance will vary depending on camera brand and model. http://robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=60...">http://robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=60... provides a more relevant yardstick. Keep in mind: You'll notice any delay much more while shooting pictures -- not while you transfer to your PC afterwards!
Thirdly, any file benchmark with random write behaviour is flawed in this test. When using a camera, all files will be stored sequentially. There's very little seeking taking place... Thus there's no need for a separate HDTach test. The file copy to media should suffice plenty. Only one of the tests will provide a relevant picture. (hard to tell if they provided the same numbers...? Different graph styles have been used!)
Finally, why leave the Sandisk Extreme III cards outside this test? They are the absolute best... (and have been for over a year!)
--
Rune
quanta - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
Speaking of absolute best, Sandisk's record was just broken by Twinmos (140x) and ATP ProMax (150x). For that matter, CompactFlash record is already broken by MMC Plus cards, which goes up to 200x, with the announced 266x from Pretec.Cygni - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
A sequential test would be nice, but i doubt it would change the results a whole lot. It would be good for us CF camera users, though. But AT is a computer site... not a Camera site. They tested using CF's using computer standards and techniques, for computer storage more or less.Also, AT only tests what they get sent. If Newegg didnt send them a Sandisk Ex III, they dont get to test one. They aint rollin in the dough.
I really liked the idea of CF roundup. Its something ive never seen AT do, and with motherboards so close in performance, new CPU's performance predictable, and video cards all based on reference designs, its good for AT to branch out into some new stuff for us to read.
PuravSanghani - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
Well actually, we don't ONLY test what NewEgg or any other manufacturers/retailers send us. We specifically asked for these models for our first 1GB CompactFlash roundup...yes, first! So there is more to come in the flash media area.As for how we benchmark and why we do it the way we do on computers instead of using digital cameras, many who use flash media for more than just digital camera storage, like MP3 players and PDAs, use USB based card readers interfaced with their PCs. We benchmark this way to compare the performance of each card relative to the other products in the article.
As for all new areas we journey into we greatly appreciate any constructive criticism to improve our processes.
Thank you all and have a safe and happy holiday.
Purav
BikeDude - Sunday, December 25, 2005 - link
"use USB based card readers interfaced with their PCs."I hope you realise that performance varies greatly between most card readers. (e.g. few of them supports the latest PIO modes added to the CF specs a year ago)
I would've started by benchmarking the readers. My top candidates are Lexar's latest Firewire based reader, SanDisk latest USB2 reader, as well as Delkin's CardBus based reader.
I doubt a reader that can read multiple card formats performs well when compared with the ones I mentioned.
(Slightly related pet peeve: Laptop tests that give a laptop "+" for having a CF reader, but doesn't bother testing its speed -- My notebook's built-in reader is useless)
--
Rune
Anton74 - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
FYI, I just noticed that the RiDATA CF cards available on newegg are all 80x - the 1GB model is $60 plus S&H.The tested RiDATA Pro-52x looked to me like the most attractive blend between performance and expected life expectancy. I'm guessing the 80x is faster and shorter lived. (But how short is short, really?)
Anton74 - Saturday, December 24, 2005 - link
It should be noted, of course, that I am a representative of the Department of Redundancy Department. ;-)
heulenwolf - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
At my workplace, we use CF cards for all sorts of things that don't involve cameras. I, for one, am happy to see random access tests. I agree that they should be in addition to sequential tests to give camera users some info.I agree that the graph types need some work. Specifically, the spline (or whatever interpolation function it is) used on page three, "Real World File Copy Test to Media," connects dots between different cards. This interpolation tells us nothing and only confuses the situation by connecting what should be disassociated information. For example, there's no information provided by looking at what the spline says occurs "half way" between an Edge and a Kingston card. If Purav were to switch the graphing inputs around such that the X-axis is file size and make separate lines for each card, then, assuming he'd picked an appropriate interpolation function for the "Real World" transfer times, we might be able to tell something about transfer times for file sizes in between the three tested. If not, then drop the spline and just plot the dots.
Lifted - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
So where are the RAID benchmarks?mindless1 - Friday, December 23, 2005 - link
"Special thanks to NewEgg for providing us with the CompactFlash cards for this review."Yes, thank you Newegg. I love seeing reviews where Newegg donated parts, since so many of us shop there it seems a win-win for everyone.