1GB CompactFlash Roundup

An anonymous reader writes "In an article from AnandTech, Purav Sanghani focuses on the most widely used flash media, the 1GB CompactFlash cards. AnandTech has taken ten of the most well-known and unknown brands and put them through three tests: real world file system task test, HDTach 3 RW and SiSoft Sandra's File System Benchmark." From the article: "All of these cards are standard CompactFlash Type I media cards with varying speeds with exception of the Lexar Professional series media, which features its 'Write Acceleration Technology', said to improve image write speeds by up to 23% with compatible cameras. This is done with the aid of special firmware on the media as well as the cameras themselves, which allow them to work together to improve the write algorithms. However, we have also seen an improvement in write speeds in our benchmarks as well, but we'll let you see for yourself."

Comments

Link.

[ScaryFroMan]

The link provided is to the single-page, non-ad filled "print version." Good move. Very un-slashdot like.

Re:Link.

[gladmac]

That's probably not such a good thing... we should give servers that we're about to murder some compensation. I think it's even very bad tone to do this.

Re:Link.

[DrXym]

Why is it a good move from Anandtech's perspective. They get slashdotted and don't even get to recoup that expense through advertising views / clicks.

Re:Link.

[orkysoft]

Yeah, I usually store them on my Sony Memory Stick instead of on some sheets of paper.

Lexar

[Anonymous Coward]

The fastest is $65.95 for Lexar Professional series media, but lasts 5 times less than the slowest ones.... price wise, I'd go with Viking, but how often do people go through these cards?

Would you actually need one for longer than how long Lexar's will last?

Re:Lexar

[Gubbe]

I would think that by the time the card dies, new 1 gig cards cost $5 and are as useful as 16MB cards today. I've never heard anyone say that their flash card died of old age. Those endurance numbers weren't discovered by throwing data at each card until they died. They were obtained by calculating the average amount of writes per allocation unit or something like that.

When taking pictures or storing music, you're not overwriting any allocation unit more than once. Considering any allocation unit in flash memory can endure hundreds of thousands of writes, you can, in theory anyway, fill the card with pictures at least 100k times before it fails. This means millions of pictures.

My semi-educated hunch is that flash endurance is a moot point when using the memory for storage. It only matters when using the drive as swap space where it's written to and read from constantly.

If there are flaws in my reasoning, please do point them out. This is just my current understanding regarding this issue.

CF write speeds depend on more than that!

[zippity8]

Don't forget Rob Galbraith's CF comparison for many dSLR cameras (you gotta use these cards somewhere!)

Transcend 80x Compactflash

[RandyOo]

I've been using 2 gig and 4 gig 80x Transcend Compactflash cards in my Rebel XT, and have been very impressed with their speed, and they're a great value. Lexar's 4 gig cost more than twice as much, and the performance of the Transcend card is close enough for me. I would definitely recommend Transcend's cards to anyone looking for good performance on a budget.

Companies sure are getting around these days..

[BugsPray]

I've got a Rosewill case, SanDisk 512mb flash memory chip, Kingston system memory, PNY video card, Lexar 1GB flash stick, and some Rosewill memory on top of that. It seems as though companies are taking bits and pieces from each pie instead of one entire pie (wow, that was the worst analogy I've ever given -- must sleep...).

sandisk

[felix21685]

Most Canon users prefer Sandisk Ultra II or Sandisk Extreme III THere have been reports of lexar cards failing.

Graphs

[gladmac]

You can't really trust somebody who makes a line graph when there is no notion of sequence! Thinking about this one:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/1gb%20compactfl ash%20roundup_12210581203/10365.png

Especially the interpolation gets really ridiculous... they have this "nice" interconnecting line segments that represent what - a combination of two cards?

It would have made some sense to have the lines in the other dimension, with three points on the line, one for each size of file and then one line for each card. The interpolation that the line represents would then have a meaning - files of other sizes. That would get a little messy though. But seriously, how often did a line graph make sense with the lines in either dimension? :) There is at most one correct choice...

Endurance Factor is a total BS

[citizenr]

Kingston is MLC based and has the WORST life cycle,
Fast cards are SLC based are and on average ~10 times better.

Here is a proof : http://www.achieva.com.au/news_slcvsmlc.htm

Re:Endurance Factor is a total BS

[Chmarr]

I agree... what in the world does comparing average and best write ratios have to do with 'endurance' ??

Re:CF most widely used?

[Stoutlimb]

My girlfriend doesn't use any of those.

CompactFlash most widely used?

[ClearPane]

Mobile phones, PDAs and cameras seem to be SD/MMC based, at least in the UK. Only higher end gear uses compact flash.

Re:CF most widely used?

[versus]

I can't name a single one that would accept an SD card.

Nikon D50. All other dSLRs accept CFs, though.