If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Some CompactFlash benchmarks
It's interesting to see how generic CF cards
perform when tested. Many are faster than you might think, although not blazing fast. http://home.comcast.net/~fbui/Flash.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Some CompactFlash benchmarks
In article om, Joe
wrote: It's interesting to see how generic CF cards perform when tested. Many are faster than you might think, although not blazing fast. http://home.comcast.net/~fbui/Flash.html looks like you have a slow card reader. here's a substantially more comprehensive test with speeds *much* faster than what you got: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/no_nav.asp?cid=6007-8471 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Some CompactFlash benchmarks
nospam wrote:
In article om, Joe wrote: It's interesting to see how generic CF cards perform when tested. Many are faster than you might think, although not blazing fast. http://home.comcast.net/~fbui/Flash.html looks like you have a slow card reader. here's a substantially more comprehensive test with speeds *much* faster than what you got: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/no_nav.asp?cid=6007-8471 Write speed also depends on how full the card is with what kind of files: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ash_card_speed Roger |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Some CompactFlash benchmarks
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:01:14 -0700, nospam
wrote: In article om, Joe wrote: It's interesting to see how generic CF cards perform when tested. Many are faster than you might think, although not blazing fast. http://home.comcast.net/~fbui/Flash.html looks like you have a slow card reader. here's a substantially more comprehensive test with speeds *much* faster than what you got: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/no_nav.asp?cid=6007-8471 There's no evidence of this yet. All his cards are quite old and unrated (for any reasonable purpose of rating, what real use is there when it's rated for a very low speed?, "4X" was a quite low speed, today's "unrated" new-stock cards generally achieve closer to 40X read with an optimal reader. The card reader could still be a bottleneck, though of the few I have, none (assuming USB2 era not USB1) bottleneck below about 12MB/s. They will tend to bottleneck the faster new cards or from transfer of many smaller files. Rob Galbraith's tests were of faster cards, while Joe was showing what's possible with quite old and/or low-end cards. To the OP, if you're interested in peak CF performance than seek a modern generation CF3 or CF4 spec'd card (merely having it state "CF spec" is not enough), generally rated at 150X to 266X, and use a CF-IDE adapter instead of USB. With a modern 266X rated card running in UDMA mode from such an adapter you should see up to (per your test, actual rate depends on use) about 35-40MB/s read speed and a little over 20MB/s write. Shopping online is probably a better bet than going mail-order. For example in 2GB size, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820211177 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820208296 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1GB SD or CompactFlash | dc-gear.com | Digital Photography | 2 | April 11th 06 11:30 PM |
Which Compactflash Card | Vinnie | Digital SLR Cameras | 11 | July 23rd 05 11:38 AM |
Canon Compactflash. | Edward Strauss | Digital Photography | 7 | February 19th 05 05:29 PM |
Compactflash for Dynax 7D | steven | Digital Photography | 0 | January 1st 05 09:48 PM |
Compactflash for Dynax 7D | steven | Digital Photography | 0 | January 1st 05 09:48 PM |