Original Link: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12002/sandisk-extreme-and-extreme-pro-memory-cards-review
SanDisk Extreme and Extreme PRO Memory Cards Review
by Ganesh T S on November 8, 2017 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
- SanDisk
- flash
- Memory Cards
- microSDXC
- SDXC
- CFast
- CompactFlash
Digital cameras and camcorders employ memory cards (flash-based removable media) for storage of captured content. There are different varieties of memory cards catering to various performance levels. CompactFlash (CF) became popular in the late 90s, but, has now been overtaken by Secure Digital (SD) cards. Many computing systems (PCs as well as smartphones) also support SD cards for augmenting local storage capabilities. High-end recording systems with fast storage requirements use CFast and/or XQD cards. We recently started in-depth evaluation of the performance of various memory cards. SanDisk sent us a SDXC, two microSDXC, a CFast 2.0, and a CompactFlash card from their portfolio for review.
Introduction
SanDisk / Western Digital is one of the very few flash product vendors who manufacture their own flash memory. They have a comprehensive flash product portfolio targeting the content creators market. Their portable external SSDs and high-performance thumb drives take care of the post-ingestion portable storage requirements, while their range of memory cards service the actual in-camera storage market. Lexar (which used to be a division of Micron) has memory cards for all formats currently in use - SD, microSD, CompactFlash (CF), CFast, and XQD. SanDisk targets all formats other than XQD.
SanDisk sent 5 different cards for our evaluation:
- SanDisk Extreme microSDXC UHS-I 128GB
- SanDisk Extreme PRO microSDXC UHS-II 128GB
- SanDisk Extreme PRO SDXC UHS-II 128GB
- SanDisk Extreme PRO CompactFlash 128GB
- SanDisk Extreme PRO CFast 2.0 64GB
Each of these five cards were subject to our comprehensive memory card evaluation routine. Readers will get an idea of the out-of-box performance as well as how the performance degrades after extensive usage.
The next four sections will detail the obtained performance numbers. Prior to that, we take a look at the testbed setup and evaluation methodology.
Testbed Setup and Testing Methodology
Evaluation of memory cards is done on Windows with the testbed outlined in the table below. The USB 3.1 Type-C port enabled by the Intel Alpine Ridge controller (It connects to the Z170 PCH via a PCIe 3.0 x4 link) is used for benchmarking purposes on the testbed side. SD and microSD cards utilize the Lexar Professional Workflow SR2 SDHC / SDXC UHS-II USB 3.0 Reader. A microSD to SDXC UHS-II adapter is used for the latter. CF cards utilize the Lexar Professional Workflow CFR1 CompactFlash UDMA 7 USB 3.0 Reader. The readers were placed in the Lexar Professional Workflow HR2 hub and uplinked through its USB 3.0 port with the help of a USB 3.0 Type-A female to Type-C male cable. CFast cards utilize the Lexar Professional Workflow CR2 CFast 2.0 Thunderbolt/USB 3.0 Reader via its Thunderbolt 2 port. The testbed connection was made through the StarTech.com Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt adapter.
| AnandTech DAS Testbed Configuration | |
| Motherboard | GIGABYTE Z170X-UD5 TH ATX |
| CPU | Intel Core i5-6600K |
| Memory | G.Skill Ripjaws 4 F4-2133C15-8GRR 32 GB ( 4x 8GB) DDR4-2133 @ 15-15-15-35 |
| OS Drive | Samsung SM951 MZVPV256 NVMe 256 GB |
| SATA Devices | Corsair Neutron XT SSD 480 GB Intel SSD 730 Series 480 GB |
| Add-on Card | None |
| Chassis | Cooler Master HAF XB EVO |
| PSU | Cooler Master V750 750 W |
| OS | Windows 10 Pro x64 |
| Thanks to Cooler Master, GIGABYTE, G.Skill and Intel for the build components | |
The full details of the reasoning behind choosing the above build components can be found here.
SanDisk Extreme PRO SDXC Performance
SD (Secure Digital) cards were introduced in 1999, as an update to the existing MultiMediaCards (MMCs). It gained traction even in areas where CompactFlash had been preferred, thanks to its small size. Its popularity is evident by the fact that it has spawned two follow-ups in the same form factor - starting with the SDSC in 1999 for capacities between 1MB and 2GB, we got SD High Capacity (SDHC) in 2006 (up to 32GB) and SD eXtended Capacity (SDXC) in 2009 (up to 2TB). The cards also come in various sizes - standard, mini, and micro. In addition to the capacity aspect, the performance levels have also gone up. While UHS-I had an upper theoretical limit of around 100 MBps, UHS-II added more pins and increased the theoretical limit to around 312 MBps.
The SanDisk Extreme PRO SDXC UHS-II family has three different capacity points - 32GB, 64GB, and 128GB. In this section, we take a look at the performance of the 128GB version.
Sequential Accesses
SanDisk claims speeds of up to 300 MBps, but real-world speeds are bound to be lower. In fact, writes can sometimes be much slower. For most applications, that really doesn't matter as long as the card is capable of sustaining the maximum possible rate at which the camera it is used in dumps data. We use fio workloads to emulate typical camera recording conditions. We run the workload on a fresh card, and also after simulating extended usage. Instantaneous bandwidth numbers are graphed. This gives an idea of performance consistency (whether there is appreciable degradation in performance as the amount of pre-existing data increases and / or the card is subject to wear and tear in terms of amount and type of NAND writes). Further justification and details of the testing parameters are available here.
The SanDisk Extreme PRO SDXC UHS-II 128GB card manages to hold on to its performance numbers even after extended usage. In the case of an old card, the sustained write speed does take an occassional dip (going from the average 180 MBps to around 150 MBps, but, that is pretty insignificant compared to what we see with the other cards). The read speeds are largely unaffected by the extended usage aspect.
Compared to other UHS-II cards that we have evaluated before, the ADATA Premier ONE comes out with better sustained sequential writes and reads (typical of the digital camera / camcorder recording and content ingestion workloads). Even in the accelerated ageing case, the ADATA card manages to be on top. Under these circumstances, the choice comes down to pricing to see if the SanDisk Extreme PRO can deliver better value for money. We will be seeing that in the last section.
AnandTech DAS Suite - Performance Consistency
The AnandTech DAS Suite involves transferring large amounts of photos and videos to and from the storage device using robocopy. This is followed by selected workloads from PCMark 8's storage benchmark in order to evaluate scenarios such as importing media files directly into multimedia editing programs such as Adobe Photoshop. Details of these tests from the perspective of memory cards are available here.
In this subsection, we deal with performance consistency while processing the robocopy segment. The graph below shows the read and write transfer rates to the memory card while the robocopy processes took place in the background. The data for writing to the card resides in a RAM drive in the testbed. The first three sets of writes and reads correspond to the photos suite. A small gap (for the transfer of the videos suite from the primary drive to the RAM drive) is followed by three sets for the next data set. Another small RAM-drive transfer gap is followed by three sets for the Blu-ray folder. The corresponding graphs for similar cards that we have evaluated before is available via the drop-down selection.
In these tests, we find that the SanDisk Extreme PRO is well optimized for general data traffic compared to the ADATA Premier ONE. The full test is completed within 30 minutes compared to around 40 for the ADATA card. For general computing systems (smartphones and other embedded systems), the SanDisk Extreme PRO might turn out to be a better choice.
AnandTech DAS Suite - Bandwidth
The average transfer rates for each workload from the previous section is graphed below. Readers can get a quantitative number to compare the SanDisk Extreme PRO SDXC UHS II 128GB SD card against the ones that we have evaluated before. Here, the main competition is between the ADATA Premier ONE and the SanDisk Extreme PRO. The SanDisk card wins in the mixed-sized write-intensive workload (photos section) comfortably, while giving close competition in the other scenarios.
We also look at the PCMark 8 storage bench numbers in the graphs below. Note that the bandwidth number reported in the results don't involve idle time compression. Results might appear low, but that is part of the workload characteristic. Note that the same testbed is being used for all memory cards. Therefore, comparing the numbers for each trace should be possible across different cards. In this case, the optimization of the SD controller firmware for mixed-size / generic workloads is evident, as the SanDisk card comes out on top in most of the tests.
Performance Restoration
The traditional memory card use-case is to delete the files on it after the import process is completed. Some prefer to format the card either using the PC, or, through the options available in the camera menu. The first option is not a great one, given that flash-based storage devices run into bandwidth issues if garbage collection (processes such as TRIM) is not run regularly. Different memory cards have different ways to bring them to a fresh state.Based on our experience, SD cards have to be formatted using the SD Formatter tool from the SD Association (after all the partitions are removed using the 'clean' command in diskpart).
In order to test out the effectiveness of the performance restoration process, we run the default sequential workloads in CrystalDiskMark before and after the formatting. Note that this is at the end of all our benchmark runs, and the card is in a used state at the beginning of the process. The corresponding screenshots for similar cards that we have evaluated before is available via the drop-down selection.
Given that we didn't have much performance degradation in our sustained workloads test, it is not surprising that the CrystalDiskMark numbers for the used and refreshed cases are close to each other. Users don't need to worry too much about regularly formatting the Extreme PRO SDXC UHS-II card in order to maintain consistent performance.
SanDisk Extreme & Extreme PRO microSDXC Performance
We took a brief look at the history of SD / mini-SD / micro-SD cards in the previous section. Similar to SDXC, we have UHS-I and UHS-II interfaces for the microSDXC cards also. SanDisk bundles appropriate adapters with the microSDXC cards. While the UHS-I Extreme card gets a simple full-sized SDXC adapter, the UHS-II Extreme PRO comes with a compact USB 3.0 microSDXC UHS-II reader.
The Extreme PRO microSDXC UHS-II card comes in 64GB and 128GB, while the Extreme microSDXC UHS-I card has 32GB, 64GB, 128GB, and 256GB capacity points. We look at the performance of the 128GB versions in this section.
Sequential Accesses
SanDisk claims speeds of up to 275 MBps for the Extreme PRO UHS-II and 100 MBps for the Extreme UHS-I cards, but real-world speeds are bound to be lower. In fact, writes can sometimes be much slower. For most applications, that really doesn't matter as long as the card is capable of sustaining the maximum possible rate at which the camera it is used in dumps data. We use fio workloads to emulate typical camera recording conditions. We run the workload on a fresh card, and also after simulating extended usage. Instantaneous bandwidth numbers are graphed. This gives an idea of performance consistency (whether there is appreciable degradation in performance as the amount of pre-existing data increases and / or the card is subject to wear and tear in terms of amount and type of NAND writes). Further justification and details of the testing parameters are available here.
Both cards show great performance consistency in the fresh state. Users can expect sustained writes of around 110 MBps and 60 MBps for the Extreme PRO and the Extreme respectively. Reads are much higher at 230 MBps and 95 MBps. The numbers after extended use are very similar, but, there is a bit of consistency loss. In the default state, the ADATA Premier ONE UHS-II card delivers much better write performance, but, in the extended usage state, the Premier ONE's performance is halved, while the Extreme PRO doesn't show any significant degradation. On the other hand, the Lexar UHS-II card seems to be the overall winner both in terms of consistency as well as raw numbers.
AnandTech DAS Suite - Performance Consistency
The AnandTech DAS Suite involves transferring large amounts of photos and videos to and from the storage device using robocopy. This is followed by selected workloads from PCMark 8's storage benchmark in order to evaluate scenarios such as importing media files directly into multimedia editing programs such as Adobe Photoshop. Details of these tests from the perspective of memory cards are available here.
In this subsection, we deal with performance consistency while processing the robocopy segment. The graph below shows the read and write transfer rates to the memory card while the robocopy processes took place in the background. The data for writing to the card resides in a RAM drive in the testbed. The first three sets of writes and reads correspond to the photos suite. A small gap (for the transfer of the videos suite from the primary drive to the RAM drive) is followed by three sets for the next data set. Another small RAM-drive transfer gap is followed by three sets for the Blu-ray folder. The corresponding graphs for similar cards that we have evaluated before is available via the drop-down selection.
The Extreme PRO seems to be well-optimized for general usage also. The Extreme, as well as the ADATA Premier ONE show some of their shortcomings when dealing with a large number of small files with different sizes. The Lexar card and the SanDisk Extreme PRO show similar performance.
AnandTech DAS Suite - Bandwidth
The average transfer rates for each workload from the previous section is graphed below. Readers can get a quantitative number to compare the SanDisk Extreme PRO microSDXC UHS II 128GB uSD card and the Extreme microSDXC UHS I 128GB uSD card against the ones that we have evaluated before.
We also look at the PCMark 8 storage bench numbers in the graphs below. Note that the bandwidth number reported in the results don't involve idle time compression. Results might appear low, but that is part of the workload characteristic. Note that the same testbed is being used for all memory cards. Therefore, comparing the numbers for each trace should be possible across different cards.
Performance Restoration
The traditional memory card use-case is to delete the files on it after the import process is completed. Some prefer to format the card either using the PC, or, through the options available in the camera menu. The first option is not a great one, given that flash-based storage devices run into bandwidth issues if garbage collection (processes such as TRIM) is not run regularly. Different memory cards have different ways to bring them to a fresh state.Based on our experience, uSD cards have to be formatted using the SD Formatter tool from the SD Association (after all the partitions are removed using the 'clean' command in diskpart).
In order to test out the effectiveness of the performance restoration process, we run the default sequential workloads in CrystalDiskMark before and after the formatting. Note that this is at the end of all our benchmark runs, and the card is in a used state at the beginning of the process. The corresponding screenshots for similar cards that we have evaluated before is available via the drop-down selection.
Both cards show negligible performance benefits from refreshing / reformatting. Obviously, reformats will help in avoiding the occassional performance dips that we observed in the sustained writes / reads after subjecting the card to extended use.
SanDisk Extreme PRO CompactFlash Performance
CompactFlash (CF) was introduced back in 1994 as a mass storage device format, and it turned out to be the most successful amongst the first set of such products. Electrically, it is based on a parallel ATA (PATA) interface.
The SanDisk Extreme PRO CF cards come in capacities ranging from 16GB to 256GB. We review the performance of the 128GB variant here.
Sequential Accesses
SanDisk claims speeds of up to 160 MBps, but real-world speeds are bound to be lower. In fact, writes can sometimes be much slower. For most applications, that really doesn't matter as long as the card is capable of sustaining the maximum possible rate at which the camera it is used in dumps data. We use fio workloads to emulate typical camera recording conditions. We run the workload on a fresh card, and also after simulating extended usage. Instantaneous bandwidth numbers are graphed. This gives an idea of performance consistency (whether there is appreciable degradation in performance as the amount of pre-existing data increases and / or the card is subject to wear and tear in terms of amount and type of NAND writes). Further justification and details of the testing parameters are available here.
In terms of raw bandwidth as well as consistency, the Lexar 1066x card performs better than the SanDisk Extreme PRO version at the same capacity point. However, the difference is not very significant.
AnandTech DAS Suite - Performance Consistency
The AnandTech DAS Suite involves transferring large amounts of photos and videos to and from the storage device using robocopy. This is followed by selected workloads from PCMark 8's storage benchmark in order to evaluate scenarios such as importing media files directly into multimedia editing programs such as Adobe Photoshop. Details of these tests from the perspective of memory cards are available here.
In this subsection, we deal with performance consistency while processing the robocopy segment. The graph below shows the read and write transfer rates to the memory card while the robocopy processes took place in the background. The data for writing to the card resides in a RAM drive in the testbed. The first three sets of writes and reads correspond to the photos suite. A small gap (for the transfer of the videos suite from the primary drive to the RAM drive) is followed by three sets for the next data set. Another small RAM-drive transfer gap is followed by three sets for the Blu-ray folder. The corresponding graphs for similar cards that we have evaluated before is available via the drop-down selection.
The Extreme PRO is consistent across all three repetitions of each workload. However, the Lexar card is able to complete the benchmark faster while exhibiting similar consistency.
AnandTech DAS Suite - Bandwidth
The average transfer rates for each workload from the previous section is graphed below. Readers can get a quantitative number to compare the SanDisk Extreme PRO CompactFlash 128GB CF card against the ones that we have evaluated before.
We also look at the PCMark 8 storage bench numbers in the graphs below. Note that the bandwidth number reported in the results don't involve idle time compression. Results might appear low, but that is part of the workload characteristic. Note that the same testbed is being used for all memory cards. Therefore, comparing the numbers for each trace should be possible across different cards.
Performance Restoration
The traditional memory card use-case is to delete the files on it after the import process is completed. Some prefer to format the card either using the PC, or, through the options available in the camera menu. The first option is not a great one, given that flash-based storage devices run into bandwidth issues if garbage collection (processes such as TRIM) is not run regularly. Different memory cards have different ways to bring them to a fresh state.Based on our experience, CF cards have to be formatted after all the partitions are removed using the 'clean' command in diskpart.
In order to test out the effectiveness of the performance restoration process, we run the default sequential workloads in CrystalDiskMark before and after the formatting. Note that this is at the end of all our benchmark runs, and the card is in a used state at the beginning of the process. The corresponding screenshots for similar cards that we have evaluated before is available via the drop-down selection.
There is no significant performance loss after simulation of extended usage. Therefore, it is not surprising that the CrystalDiskMark numbers don't show much benefit after reformatting / refreshing the card.
SanDisk Extreme PRO CFast Performance
CFast (CompactFast), introduced in 2008, is a variant of CompactFlash (CF). The main update is the use of a Serial ATA (SATA) interface instead of PATA. The initial verion was based on SATA II and topped out at 300 MBps theoretically. In 2012, CFast 2.0 was introduced. It updated the electrical interface to SATA III (600 MBps). The transition from CF to CFast has been quite slow, with most camera manufacturers believing that CF cards still offer them enough performance. CFast slots are current found in a number of high-end camera and camcorder models .
SanDisk's Extreme PRO CFast 2.0 lineup has 64GB, 128GB, and 256GB versions. This section reviews the 64GB version.
Sequential Accesses
SanDisk claims speeds of up to 525 MBps writes and 450 MBps reads, but real-world speeds are bound to be lower. For most applications, that really doesn't matter as long as the card is capable of sustaining the maximum possible rate at which the camera it is used in dumps data. We use fio workloads to emulate typical camera recording conditions. We run the workload on a fresh card, and also after simulating extended usage. Instantaneous bandwidth numbers are graphed. This gives an idea of performance consistency (whether there is appreciable degradation in performance as the amount of pre-existing data increases and / or the card is subject to wear and tear in terms of amount and type of NAND writes). Further justification and details of the testing parameters are available here.
We find that the card is subject to severe slowdown after extended usage. Our only other comparison point is a 128GB CFast 2.0 card from Lexar, and comparing different capacity points doesn't provide us with the full picture. Suffice to say that the SanDisk CFast 2.0 card needs to provide better write consistency even in the out-of-the-box state.
AnandTech DAS Suite - Performance Consistency
The AnandTech DAS Suite involves transferring large amounts of photos and videos to and from the storage device using robocopy. This is followed by selected workloads from PCMark 8's storage benchmark in order to evaluate scenarios such as importing media files directly into multimedia editing programs such as Adobe Photoshop. Details of these tests from the perspective of memory cards are available here.
In this subsection, we deal with performance consistency while processing the robocopy segment. The graph below shows the read and write transfer rates to the memory card while the robocopy processes took place in the background. The data for writing to the card resides in a RAM drive in the testbed. The first three sets of writes and reads correspond to the photos suite. A small gap (for the transfer of the videos suite from the primary drive to the RAM drive) is followed by three sets for the next data set. Another small RAM-drive transfer gap is followed by three sets for the Blu-ray folder. The corresponding graphs for similar cards that we have evaluated before is available via the drop-down selection.
Here, we can see the difference in consistency in the beginning. The photos start getting transferred at around 175 MBps, but, even in the second repetition, we see that the transfer rates are slower. Thankfully, after the initial burst, the rates do hold up. The behavior is similar to the Lexar card, but, the absolute numbers are lower.
AnandTech DAS Suite - Bandwidth
The average transfer rates for each workload from the previous section is graphed below. Readers can get a quantitative number to compare the SanDisk Extreme PRO CFast 2.0 64GB CFast card against the ones that we have evaluated before.
We also look at the PCMark 8 storage bench numbers in the graphs below. Note that the bandwidth number reported in the results don't involve idle time compression. Results might appear low, but that is part of the workload characteristic. Note that the same testbed is being used for all memory cards. Therefore, comparing the numbers for each trace should be possible across different cards.
Performance Restoration
The traditional memory card use-case is to delete the files on it after the import process is completed. Some prefer to format the card either using the PC, or, through the options available in the camera menu. The first option is not a great one, given that flash-based storage devices run into bandwidth issues if garbage collection (processes such as TRIM) is not run regularly. Different memory cards have different ways to bring them to a fresh state.Based on our experience, CFast cards have to be formatted using the CFast Sanitize Tool from the card vendor.
In order to test out the effectiveness of the performance restoration process, we run the default sequential workloads in CrystalDiskMark before and after the formatting. Note that this is at the end of all our benchmark runs, and the card is in a used state at the beginning of the process. The corresponding screenshots for similar cards that we have evaluated before is available via the drop-down selection.
The CrystalDiskMark benchmark doesn't bring out the full extent of the performance loss in the used case. We saw that earlier in this section. The numbers above show that some of the loss is reclaimed, but, our traditional sequential access test reveals whether the performance restoration is really successful.
We see that the refreshed performance is very similar to the out of the box performance. This shows that it is important to regularly run the sanitize tool for the CFast cards.
Miscellaneous Aspects and Concluding Remarks
Readers are often interested in the type of flash being used inside the memory cards. While manufacturers such as ADATA are quite open about the type of flash used, most are not. SanDisk falls in the latter category, and it is not clear whether the cards that we have reviewed carry MLC or TLC flash.
In addition to raw performance and consistency, pricing is also an important aspect. This is particularly important in the casual user and semi-professional markets, where the value for money metric often trumps benchmark numbers. The table below presents the relevant data for the various memory cards we have evaluated so far. The cards are ordered by the $/GB metric.
| SD Cards - Pricing | ||||
| Card | Model Number | Capacity (GB) | Street Price (USD) | Price per GB (USD/GB) |
| ADATA Premier Pro SDXC UHS I 64GB | ASDX64GUI3CL10-R | 64 | 41 | 0.64 |
| Lexar 1000x 128GB | LSD128CRBNA1000 | 128 | 95 | 0.74 |
| ADATA XPG SDXC UHS I 64GB | ASDX64GXUI3CL10-R | 64 | 83 | 1.30 |
| ADATA Premier ONE SDXC UHS II 128GB | ASDX128GUII3CL10-C | 128 | 200 | 1.56 |
| SanDisk Extreme PRO SDXC UHS II 128GB | SDSDXPK-128G-ANCIN | 128 | 250 | 1.95 |
Considering the UHS-II cards alone, the SanDisk Extreme PRO has the worst pricing of all. The ADATA Premier ONE deliver comparable performance at a much better price point.
| uSD Cards - Pricing | ||||
| Card | Model Number | Capacity (GB) | Street Price (USD) | Price per GB (USD/GB) |
| SanDisk Extreme microSDXC UHS I 128GB | SDSQXAF-128G-GN6MA | 128 | 65 | 0.51 |
| ADATA XPG microSDXC UHS I 64GB | AUSDX64GXUI3-RA1 | 64 | 50 | 0.78 |
| ADATA Premier ONE microSDXC UHS II 256GB | AUSDX256GUII3CL10-C | 256 | 261 | 1.02 |
| SanDisk Extreme PRO microSDXC UHS II 128GB | SDSQXPJ-128G-GN6M3 | 128 | 206 | 1.61 |
| Lexar 1800x 128GB | LSDMI128CRBNA1800R | 128 | 233 | 1.82 |
Consumers considering the SanDisk Extreme UHS-I card can rest easy. Amongst the UHS-I cards, it has the most consistent performance and also the lowest pricing (in terms of USD/GB). On the UHS-II front, the Extreme PRO delivers similar performance to the Lexar 1800x card, and is more consistent compared to the ADATA Premier ONE (despite losing out on a number of benchmarks to it). At $1.61/GB, the Extreme PRO represents the right balance of performance and cost.
| CF Cards - Pricing | ||||
| Card | Model Number | Capacity (GB) | Street Price (USD) | Price per GB (USD/GB) |
| Freetail 800x 256GB | FTCF256A08 | 256 | 145 | 0.57 |
| Freetail 1066x 256GB | FTCF256A10 | 256 | 171 | 0.67 |
| Lexar 1066x 128GB | LCF128CRBNA1066 | 128 | 110 | 0.86 |
| SanDisk Extreme PRO CompactFlash 128GB | SDCFXPS-128G-X46 | 128 | 140 | 1.09 |
The SanDisk Extreme PRO CF card does not perform as well as the Lexar equivalent, and it costs significantly more. The Lexard card is the more sensible choice here, while users looking for higher capacity cards might find the FreeTail offerings more attractive.
| CFast Cards - Pricing | ||||
| Card | Model Number | Capacity (GB) | Street Price (USD) | Price per GB (USD/GB) |
| Lexar 3600x 128GB | LC128CRBNA3600 | 128 | 385 | 3.01 |
| SanDisk Extreme PRO CFast 2.0 64GB | SDCFSP-064G-A46D | 64 | 214 | 3.34 |
CFast cards tend to be priced quite high despite just being SATA SSDs in a different form factor. The firmware is obviously more optimized for real-time multimedia recording use-cases. Our pool of evaluated CFast cards is small. Even though they are at different capacity points, and it is not exactly fair to make a comparison, we have to note that the Lexar CFast card offers much better performance and consistency compared to the SanDisk Extreme PRO 64GB version. The cost per GB metric is also in favor of the Lexar card.
SanDisk is one of the few vendors with a comprehensive memory card portfolio. We evaluated a number of their memory cards across different formats for their performance, consistency, and pricing aspects. All the evaluated cards emerged unscathed from our evaluation routine. Performance is acceptable for the speed classes targeted by the cards. In particular, the microSDXC offerings are very compelling and provide great value for money.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
