Slashdot Mirror
SanDisk's 1TB SD Card Aims To Solve Your Storage Problems (zdnet.com)
SanDisk has a new SD card which caught our attention today: a prototype card with a storage of 1TB of memory. The company says that 1TB card is necessary as we increasingly move to the world where more and more content in 4K and 8K become available. ZDNet adds: A few years ago it was inconceivable that anyone would want a 1TB storage card for their camera, but with the rise of 4K and 8K capture, as well as 360-degree video and VR, high-end professionals need all the storage they can get their hands on.
Old meme is old! XD
Data will grow to fill the available storage space. My first HD had about 20 Megs of storage and was HUGE for its time, big enough to store everything, and then some. The 150 I had a while afterwards was "all you could ever need", and in the late 1990s the first Gigabyte HDs were sure to solve our storage problems.
Guess what: None of them did. Not for long, at least. Data will grow.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Maybe I missed this, but do they give any indication of whether speeds will be on par with the other cards in their Extreme Pro line? Having dabbled quite a bit in digital photography, I've been in situations where even 90 MB/s is enough of a bottleneck that the camera can't store images as fast as it can capture them. In sports or wildlife photography, shooting 4-5 images a second in raw format, with file sizes being in the 20-30 MB range, fast write speeds are critical. I ended up ditching all of my older, slower SD cards because having to wait 2-3 seconds for each image to save (once the camera's buffer was full) is painful.
And 512GB.
Many phones have a posted maximum limit of 128GB or 200GB or 256GB, because there weren't any bigger SD card to test with.
They may be expected to support up to the theoretical max of 2TB. The other common "hard" limit is 32GB.
In fact, on socket 1366 motherboards (i7-920 and up) you have an official limit of 24GB RAM, but they can take up to 48GB RAM unofficially. Because 8GB sticks failed to not work, and Intel and motherboard manufacturers quietly decided to not update the docs.
All of our phones and digital cameras have a maximum SD card limit, most 64Gb.
SD is limited to 2 GB, SDHC to 32 GB, and SDXC to 2 TB. Aren't standards great?
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Similarly, my board is specced even now to have a maximum capacity of 16GB (4x4), but in the list of supported memory configurations which still gets updated every few months (kudos to Asus for doing this for a 6 year old mobo), there are a fair number of 4x8 configurations shown. When I upgraded from 8 to 16, I did so by adding a single 8. This means at least one of the sticks will carry over when I eventually max it out at 32. (I see no need to replace a CPU-mobo combo that runs with the mid-tier Core i5 pack now,, five years and counting after purchase.)
I have tested 128GB SD cards in devices that officially support only 32 -- Chromebooks, an Aspire One from 2009, various Merom laptops from circa late 2007. I haven't had a single failure yet. They often come up well short of the rated speed of the SD media, but they still work. My general impression is that SDHC support implies SDXC support, even if it doesn't say so on the tin.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
A few years ago it was inconceivable that anyone would want a 1TB storage card
Nope. Lemme just say now, I can conceive of a 1 PB storage card. Hell, gimme 1 EB. That'll keep you busy a while til you get to the next 'inconceivable'.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
USB-sticks with 8 gb space for $10, that reach a laughable 10 mb/s transfer speed, because anything else would be too good. Artificial limitations to control the market.
Why would anybody at all use a fixed-memory USB stick when these exist?
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Except 4 GB and 8 GB SD cards were made (and they worked if the device wasn't retarded), and today most devices supporting SDXC won't support a 2 TB card. Typical upper limits are 64 GB, 128 GB, 200 GB, and 256 GB. A while back I was looking at a 200 GB card (before the 256 GB cards came out) but realized the intended device would only support 128. And yes, reviews confirmed that it wasn't just official support, it was actual support.
p>I also have encountered cameras that only support SD cards up to 2 GB (even though 4 GB and 8 GB cards exist and work elsewhere), yet support SDHC up to 32 GB.
The original SD standard only covers capacities up to 2GB. 4GB SD cards are using 64kiB clusters on FAT16B as a out-of-spec hack.
8GB cards based on the SD standard aren't possible AFAIK, can you provide a link to such a card?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
The other common "hard" limit is 32GB.
That one is a software limitation.
"SDHC" cards go up to 32GB
"SDXC" start from 64GB
There's no pinout nor SPI difference between the 2.
The only difference is a logical one.
SDHC cards come pre-formatted with FAT32.
SDXC cards come pre-formatted with exFAT, and Microsoft has patented the shit out of it.
So unless the company has paid money to Microsoft, they can't use exFAT and can only advertise "up to 32GB SDHC cards".
But nothing prevents you to buy a 128GB SDXC and :
- either install a FUSE-exFAT driver on your OS if supported.
- or reformat the card with something supported by the OS (depending on the OS: FAT32, F2FS, Ext3/4, BTRFS, UDF, etc.)
So 128/256/512/1024GB will work on most SDHC readers (i.e.: that support more than 4GB plain- SD), but the manufacturer can't advertise it because they lack the patents to the file format that is mandatory to advertise SDXC support.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
My general impression is that SDHC support implies SDXC support, even if it doesn't say so on the tin.
Yup, unlike the plain old SD card format (which was limited to 1GB due to a small number of addressable blocks. Up to 4GB by using larger block), the protocol hasn't changed at all between SDHC and SDXC. The difference is purely software:
SDHC are formatted with FAT32, whereas the SDXC standard mandates the use of exFAT. Which Microsoft has patented the shit out of.
Any slot can access both SDHC and SDXC cards without any distinction.
The limitation is at the *OS level*, and depends on whether the OS maker has paid the necessary patent tax to be able to access the logical content of the card: An SDXC slot is simply an SDHC slot on a device whose OS has a driver for exFAT in addition to FAT32, etc.
You can use a SDXC card in any device advertised as SDHC-only only simply by :
- installing an exFAT driver (e.g.: install FUSE-exFAT on Sailfish OS)
- or reformatting the card with something that the OS supports out of the box. Some Android devices and photocamera will automatically give you the possibility to reformat the card. Other device (like Nintendo's New 3DS) will require you to manually reformat the card using a separate device before plugging in.
The size will have absolutely NO influence. (Again, that's unlike plain SD card, which use an older protocol that can only reference a smaller number of blocsk)
They often come up well short of the rated speed of the SD media, but they still work.
And that has nothing to do with SDHC/SDXC format or the size.
That's basically similar to all the various UDMA mode available on older IDE (parallel ATA), 16bit PC-Card and Compact Flash cards.
There are several different speed protocols available for SD cards.
On your device, the SDXC card fall back to older and slower speeds (Class-10, class-6, etc.), whereas the SDXC could have supported a faster one (UHS-1, UHS-3) had the reader had it too.
At least that's the theory, when writing on a plain empty card.
In practice, as there are already data on the card, it is limited mostly by the read-erase-write cycles and various wear-levelling tricks.
(So it's mostly due to an interaction between the file system used by the OS and the firmware running on the SD card.
- With Log-Structured and Copy-on-Write filesystems like UDF, F2FS, BTRFS, ZFS being better than classical FAT32.
- And SD cards capable to handle many allocation units in RAM at the same time performing better)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]