Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SanDisk Breaks Storage Record With 400GB MicroSD Card (extremetech.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the record-breaking dept.

SanDisk has managed to cram 400GB into a microSD card, making it the largest microSD card currently on the market. The company said the capacity breakthrough was the result of Western Digital, the company that owns SanDisk, "leveraging its proprietary memory technology and design and production processes that allow for more bits per die." The nitty-gritty details weren't revealed beyond that. ExtremeTech reports: The speed appears to come with a tradeoff. SanDisk trumpets its A1 speed rating, saying: "Rated A1, the SanDisk Ultra microSD card is optimized for apps, delivering faster app launch and performance that provides a better smartphone experience." This is a generous reading of the A1's target performance specification. Last year, the SD Association released a report discussing the App Performance Class memory card specification and why the spec was created in the first place. When Android added support for running applications from an SD card, there was a need to make certain the cards people bought would be quick enough to run apps in the first place. The A1 is rated for 1500 read and 500 write IOPS, with a sequential transfer speed of 10MB/s.

This SanDisk drive should run applications just fine. SanDisk claims it can be used for recording video, not just storing it. But it's not going to be fast enough for 4K data; Class 10 devices are limited to 10MB/s of sequential write performance. Obviously not all phones support shooting in 4K anyway, so whether this is a limitation will depend on what device you plan to plug it into. The 100MB/s speed trumpeted by Western Digital is a reference to read speeds; write speeds are lower and likely closer to the 10MB/s sequential target mentioned above. The microSD card is expected to retail for $250.

70 comments

  1. OK, it's late, but... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    SanDisk claims it can be used for recording video, not just storing it.

    Maybe I'm missing something, but how do you record videos without storing them?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re: OK, it's late, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need faster access storage for recording than what's required for simple storage.

    2. Re:OK, it's late, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SanDisk claims it can be used for recording video, not just storing it.

      Maybe I'm missing something, but how do you record videos without storing them?

      PEBKAC. Re-read the words "not just storing" and apply palm to face.

      (I assume you misread it as "just not storing," or that English isn't your first language.)

    3. Re:OK, it's late, but... by kiviQr · · Score: 1

      It is common for devices to have buffer that allows you to store certain amount of data while you offload it to storage device. Most high end DSLR use it.

    4. Re:OK, it's late, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But.. it is late. Lmao.

    5. Re:OK, it's late, but... by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm missing something, but how do you record videos without storing them?

      I think you read it the wrong way around.
      To give an example, you could have some high speed cards you use to record your videos, then transfer them at a lower speed to a high capacity card that isn't capable of handling real time recording speeds. They are saying this card is capable of both.

    6. Re:OK, it's late, but... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe I'm missing something, but how do you record videos without storing them?

      There's several problems. A lot of "fast" SD cards are really quite slow - they let you write maybe 16MB or so really quickly, then they transfer that to the slower larger flash array. So if you're a photographer, they will start writing really quickly but then it slows down if you're doing a motor-drive shorts. If you're a casual user and snap a photo now and again, the card appears fast.

      The problem is large cards can be slower, but people buy them because you need to store large photos and videos and need high sustained transfer rates, and because the files themselves are large, you want the big card so you can store more before swapping.

      Sandisk is claiming you can probably use this as your shooting card - it is fast enough for motor drive shots or high end 4K video recording.

    7. Re:OK, it's late, but... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Record implies storing at the rate that the data is produced. Depending on the device, you may have a fairly small amount of buffering. You need to be able to accept a constant stream of data at around 30Mb/s, with a fairly small buffer, for a period of tens of minutes, which means that things like garbage collection in the controller can't block writes enough that this causes back-pressure and data loss.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:OK, it's late, but... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Record implies storing at the rate that the data is produced.

      Yes, I know.

      I think I read "not just" as "just not".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:OK, it's late, but... by torkus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uhm, no...they don't. SD cards do not have an on-card write cache or any magic reason for them to slow down after 16MB.

      A CAMERA has a memory buffer to allow burst shots and not lock up while writing to the memory card...and windows will buffer writes as well to external drives/media depending on your configuration.

      Larger cards tend to be slower (often bc people go cheap) but there are plenty of large, fast cards as well. Just ask any pro photographer if google is broken.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    10. Re:OK, it's late, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SanDisk claims it can be used for recording video, not just storing it.

      Maybe I'm missing something, but how do you record videos without storing them?

      /dev/null has almost limitless room.

  2. Optimized for Apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are there even any phones that support a card with a capacity like that? There are only a few phones currently that can support 256GB. Most made in the last year or so support 128GB. The majority only seem to support 64GB. And what of the fact more and more companies are making phones without microSD slots?

    Still, this would be a good backup platform. Encrypted filesystem on a microSD card, backup your data, and keep it in one of those tiny pill fobs or other small capsules around your neck.

    1. Re:Optimized for Apps? by Shrubbman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In my experience the stated "supported" capacity on phones and other devices is really just the largest card the manufacturer has actively tested on that device, something they obviously couldn't do if larger cards didn't exist when the device was still in pre-release testing. It doesn't mean larger cards won't work just fine if you pop one in and try yourself, it's just not guaranteed unless the manufacturer goes back to test it as bigger cards come out. The SDXC standard theoretically goes all the way up to 2TB, so anything that supports SDXC cards *might* work just fine with these new cards, no one knows for sure until someone tries.

    2. Re:Optimized for Apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that is a brainfart and a half.

      Your argument is essentially based on the idea that you can't know if there are any bugs left in the code.
      The manufacturer knows how large cards they programmed for, even if their marketing team doesn't and just wings it.
      Sure, without testing they might have some unknown problem with larger cards, but the same could be said for cards half the size they tested against.
      Or perhaps it works just fine as long as you don't make a recording that spans the time between 23:59 and 00:00.

    3. Re:Optimized for Apps? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      The SDXC standard theoretically goes all the way up to 2TB, so anything that supports SDXC cards *might* work just fine with these new cards, no one knows for sure until someone tries.

      That last part is more key than anything else. There have been a few points in the past where the standards have changed but the form factors have not. Combined with filesystem changes. Both 2GB and 32GB had technological limits. That pretty much introduced the concept of advertising "supported" capacities.

      That said, any company that implements SDXC should theoretically be able to go to 2TB. What they don't advertise is "works with SD cards up to 2TB" because:
      a) Someone will rightfully call them out on the fact that they hadn't tested that.
      b) There's a chance that a new standard will come in at 1TB and manufacturers will release those 1TB and 2TB cards with a different standard that can't be read. Then the vendor will get called out on their marketing.

    4. Re:Optimized for Apps? by hankwang · · Score: 1

      I wonder whether unadvertised SDXC capabilities exist in devices, where the electric signals all work, but without the OS support for the patented ExFAT file system. You can't advertise SDXC without ExFAT support, but surely you are allowed to make an electrical connection?

      --
      Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
    5. Re:Optimized for Apps? by houghi · · Score: 1

      ... and if it doesn't, you can't blame them and ask for a refund. I have 64GB in many max 32GB things and never had an issue.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:Optimized for Apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some current smartphones seem to support up to 32GB only. Cheap ass things running Android 6.0 and even 7.0, I have a few candidates (all 1GB RAM), it's local brands I assume you won't recognize.
      I very much suspect they simply don't pay the ExFAT patent indeed. Something good might happen if you plug an SDXC card formatted to ext4 in, if the Android reads that out of the box i.e. no rooting or other tricks.

    7. Re:Optimized for Apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me again, Neffos Y50 is a candidate from a global brand (TP Link). Maybe you would really need it rooted to read ext4. But you might as well format a 64GB or bigger card as fat32 and see what happens.
      It'd be a matter of whether the vendor did not bother to lock the bigger cards out, or did not bother to not lock the bigger cards out and let 0.1%, either way there'd be a minuscule portion of users trying.

    8. Re:Optimized for Apps? by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      My ancient (Pentium M era) Fujitsu Lifebook's built-in SD reader reads a 32GB SDHC card without issue. SDHC wasn't a standard for ~2 years after the laptop was built, and 32GB cards seem to have spawned ~2 years after that. Not sure if the reader received a firmware update or anything to that effect.

      Point is, it's a bit hit-and-miss, but the answer to your first question it "maybe"; it's a bit difficult to test with hardware that does not yet exist.

      Regarding your second question: you want cloud. You're getting cloud. Because the makers of the phone know you need it. You can't be trusted with your own data, so they'll take it off your hands.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  3. the applications are limitless. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Funny

    border agent: we need to scan your phone and its SDcard for national security
    /.er: of course. wouldnt want the terrorists to win!
    ...weeks LATER...
    Border patrol captain: so let me get this straight. the reason everything from the phones to the cameras and the gates are running at a crawl is because one citizens phone contained 400gb of individual zip bombs marked "terrorist_plot.zip" so you guys just went from machine to machine trying to unzip them? where is he now?
    border agent: oh he left days ago.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re: the applications are limitless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moral of the story: they still held him for 1+ weeks if he left days ago but it was weeks later.

      Oh and "he left" should be replaced with "he was shot."

  4. Can They Do That?? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    I thought flash memory devices always had to be enumerated in fake arbitrary powers of 2.

    1. Re:Can They Do That?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably is, but a portion of the space is set aside as spare to cope with bad blocks.

    2. Re:Can They Do That?? by torkus · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be, but you're looking at it wrong anyhow.

      Each SD card is not a monolithic flash chip as they've all (afaik) gone with 3D stacking to increase density. Combine that with a bit of overhead AND the magical conversion between x^2 GB and 10^x GB measuring (I usually refuse to use GiB vs GB but it suits the discussion here) and you've got 400GB. A nice round number instead of the 'awkward' but accurate 384GB.

      1GiB = 1.07GB

      So 6 stacked 64GiB (or 12x32) layers = 384GiB = ~410GB minus some overhead is a 400GB chip*

      *Actual capacity is 400GB where 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes, not 1,024^3 bytes per usual nonsense disclaimer.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    3. Re:Can They Do That?? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Memories are typically powers of two because that lets you make the most efficient use of addressing lines. If you have 32 addressing lines, then you can address 4GiB of memory with each possible value on the wire representing one address. If you have an amount of memory that isn't a power of two, then you are making inefficient use of the addressing lines. This has become less important with serial protocols (you don't need more wires, you just have a small amount of redundant data for the interface).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Record speed by glitch! · · Score: 1

    SanDisk claims it can be used for recording video, not just storing it.

    Don't feel bad, I read it wrong, too. Let's make it simple. The first part is "SanDisk claims it can be used for recording video." As AC above noted, the second part is easy to get wrong. I also read it at first as "just not storing it". The correct reading is "not only storing it." A good replacement might go like, "The device can store video, of course, but can also keep up with record speeds."

    --
    A dingo ate my sig...
    1. Re:Record speed by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      Write-only memory was invented decades ago, so being able to play back would make the thing more useful.

    2. Re:Record speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what???

      write only memory can be read or "played back" as much as you want... otherwise, there would be no point in storing data on it!
      Only limitation to write only memory is that you can only record information on it ONCE.

      but... not relevant...

      this card can read and write all you want.... in fact... it can even write video data to the card in realtime without a buffer, because it is THAT fast at writing data...
      not that it is anything extraordinary, since most microSD cards can keep up when it comes to storing video

    3. Re:Record speed by anybody_out_there · · Score: 1

      whoosh!

      This is WOM

      I think you are talking about OTP memory

    4. Re:Record speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      write only memory can be read or "played back" as much as you want...

      That's not write only memory. That's some variation of programmable read only memory (PROM).

      The original write only memory
      Useful write only memory

  6. Extremetech = Extremely uninformed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But it's not going to be fast enough for 4K data; Class 10 devices are limited to 10MB/s of sequential write performance. Obviously not all phones support shooting in 4K anyway, so whether this is a limitation will depend on what device you plan to plug it into. The 100MB/s speed trumpeted by Western Digital is a reference to read speeds; write speeds are lower and likely closer to the 10MB/s sequential target mentioned above.

    A very brief glance at what Class 10 and A1 and U1 rating mean show that this is a hopelessly wrong summary. The card will almost certainly write video (sustained sequential writes) at much higher than 10MB/s. It is rated for 1080p video. It might or might not be able to write 4k video.

    1. Re:Extremetech = Extremely uninformed by Shrubbman · · Score: 1

      But it's not going to be fast enough for 4K data; Class 10 devices are limited to 10MB/s of sequential write performance. Obviously not all phones support shooting in 4K anyway, so whether this is a limitation will depend on what device you plan to plug it into. The 100MB/s speed trumpeted by Western Digital is a reference to read speeds; write speeds are lower and likely closer to the 10MB/s sequential target mentioned above.

      A very brief glance at what Class 10 and A1 and U1 rating mean show that this is a hopelessly wrong summary. The card will almost certainly write video (sustained sequential writes) at much higher than 10MB/s. It is rated for 1080p video. It might or might not be able to write 4k video.

      This. Class 10 cards are rated for a MINIMUM of 10MB/s sustained write speeds, not a maximum like the summary seems to suggest and most cards from the major manufacturers nowadays still have the old Class 10 even though they actually support drastically faster sustained write speeds.

    2. Re:Extremetech = Extremely uninformed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Class 10 is the maximum for the old numeric classes. A1 has the same sequential write requirement, but also other requirements for number of separate write operations per second it can handle (the more typical use case for phone storage). Since there is no higher A class yet, we cannot tell how much it exceeds the minimum requirements, but presumably it cannot meet U3 requirements or they would have certified it for that as well, so probably the sequential write speed is in the range 10-30MB/s.

  7. Point? by fnj · · Score: 0

    What is the point of hideously overpriced dog-slow large-capacity SD cards with extremely limited wear leveling and piss poor reliability? What are the chances you could fill this bow-wow up even once and read it all back successfully and error-free?

    1. Re: Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends if you buy the eBay knockoff or an actual WD chip...

    2. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the point of hideously overpriced dog-slow large-capacity SD cards with extremely limited wear leveling and piss poor reliability?

      What makes you think it's extremely limited wear levelling? It's 400GB, not 512GB... what's the other 112GB doing?

    3. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other 112GB is probably either expected to be already corrupt off the production line with the yields they expect at this density, or wouldn't fit on the wafer. There is no hard requirement for memory devices to have a capacity that is divisible by two, it just became a custom from back in the parallel days when the address lines were the limiting factor in capacity.

    4. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Store an entire very large music collection for one thing. Want to have The Doors on there? You won't need to care that you spent a gigabyte on The Doors. And so on with random artists or entire genres you might want to store.

      This is an application where you pretty much need to write the content only once. (have one back up elsewhere)

      If this halves in price I'd be tempted (would need a phone that can be configured to operated as USB mass storage, because MTP craps out on my linux desktop)

    5. Re:Point? by torkus · · Score: 1

      It's probably 384GB plus magic maths where 1KB doesn't need the last 24 bytes to be legit...which makes it 410GB and leaves 10GB of overhead.

      If they had a 512GB uSD card they would definitely be selling that.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    6. Re:Point? by torkus · · Score: 1

      Fill up 400GB? Sure, depending on your use this isn't extremely difficult. Read it back? Yes, I've pretty good faith in Sandisk selling a product that has been tested and actually works.

      How much wear leveling do you expect to need on a card you don't even believe people will be able to fill up in the first place though? You can't argue both sides and not be wrong on at least one anyhow. You seem to confuse this with knock-off 256GB cards that were (or are) for sale from knock-off chinese vendors that don't actually have that capacity.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    7. Re:Point? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      What is the point of hideously overpriced dog-slow large-capacity SD cards with extremely limited wear leveling and piss poor reliability?

      The point is that it's a step toward something incredibly usedful: dog-slow large-capacitry SD cards with extremely limited wear leveling. If you can make 'em cheap and reliable enough (the two problems that I deleted from your description) you can finally have a car music player that doesn't need a hard disk.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  8. "Largest microSD card currently on the market" by Illogical+Spock · · Score: 5, Funny

          It will be a failure, since it will not fit any microSD port...

    --
    --- Illogical Spock
    1. Re:"Largest microSD card currently on the market" by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

      I can't see anything in this article suggesting it won't work in a standard microSD port. You should've quoted or linked the information to back up this claim. Why would the picture of the card have "MicroSD" on it if it doesn't work in a microSD port.... If it doesn't work in a MicroSD port wouldn't that make it not a MicroSD card ?

    2. Re:"Largest microSD card currently on the market" by Illogical+Spock · · Score: 1

      I'm struggling to decide if you failed to spot my joke or if you're joking too. :-) If the case is the former, a tip: "Largest".

      --
      --- Illogical Spock
    3. Re: "Largest microSD card currently on the market" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!

    4. Re:"Largest microSD card currently on the market" by David_Hart · · Score: 2

            It will be a failure, since it will not fit any microSD port...

      Personally, I got a laugh from this. I'm planning a road trip from the east coast to the west coast and there are a number of "largest X" roadside attractions along the way.

      I can just see it now, a microSD card the size of a 4-story building with a micro-SD slot for tourists to upload their travel photos to... Have the photos display on a giant screen on the side as a slide show and have options to upload to social media... It's gonna be huuuuge I tell you!! Huuuge.... (grin)

      Hey, I should patent this idea...

  9. I could ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... store everything I've ever written or photographed on one of these. Every personal record, bank statement, tax form. Then sneeze once and its lost in the shag rug forever.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:I could ... by boudie2 · · Score: 1

      ... tie a small string around it (dental floss?) and attach the other end to a brick. That way you won't lose it.

    2. Re:I could ... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Keep it in the adapter that's packaged with all SanDisk SD cards.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:I could ... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      ... store everything I've ever written or photographed on one of these. Every personal record, bank statement, tax form. Then sneeze once and its lost in the shag rug forever.

      Just ask the NSA for their copy... for bonus point they'll also have all your phone calls transcribed, your photos will be marked with facial recognition and location recognition and cross indexed with the cell phone tower, GPS and open WiFi name records of where you've been and every http URL you've ever visited. And I'm only half joking, it's creepy that technology now actually makes it feasible to store practically everything about practically everyone.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:I could ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use a chinese xioami phone. Who do I need to contact?

    5. Re:I could ... by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      There's this new tech supposed to be ready for commercial use around 2018~
      I believe they call it "The Backup".

      --
      I tend to rant.
    6. Re:I could ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... store everything I've ever written or photographed on one of these. Every personal record, bank statement, tax form. Then sneeze once and its lost in the shag rug forever.

      Reminds me how the main character of a certain 80's TV show lost the owner's manual to his super suit.

  10. Might be QLC by mentil · · Score: 2

    Rumor is that this card uses QLC (quad-level cell) tech, which if true, would mean a very low number of rewrites possible. It would also mean poor performance. I know I wouldn't want to bet 400GB of irreplaceable data on unproven tech.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Might be QLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Important data should never be irreplaceable. Back it up whenever possible.

    2. Re:Might be QLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rumor is that this card uses QLC (quad-level cell) tech, which if true, would mean a very low number of rewrites possible. It would also mean poor performance. I know I wouldn't want to bet 400GB of irreplaceable data on unproven tech.

      Depends on the application. A lot of pro-ist photogs use cameras with dual slots for just this very reason.

  11. 400GB? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    So what's that in porn-phone-hours?

    I ask only from idle curiosity, of course.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  12. I though the title was Sandisk Storage Breaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which, incidentally is what actually happened to my shiny 64 GB microSD after just a few months.

  13. How much does the user really get to use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly, since this is "secure digital" the user lose to Content Protection for Recordable Media?

    I'd be much happier to have a 400GB device that allow me to store close to 400GB.

  14. WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not a record. They already have reached 1TB

    https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2016/9/20/12986234/biggest-sd-card-1-terabyte-sandisk

    1. Re:WRONG! by wed128 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but this one's a micro SD card. they're smaller then a regular sd card (like the one you linked)

  15. at that capacity you could replace tape backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm still using lto3 and with that being 400 gig each tape, i could replace it with a set of these sd cards...
    it would depend on speed and reliability

    1. Re:at that capacity you could replace tape backup by Doke · · Score: 1

      The costs don't work. This is supposed to MSRP for $250, and hold 400GB. This example of an LTO5 tape costs about $22, and holds 3TB. https://www.amazon.com/LTO5-Ul...

    2. Re:at that capacity you could replace tape backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose writing would suck although if you're using it a bit like a tape, sequentially writing an archive you'd get the max sustained write speed.

      Given the price though, you could get an M.2 SATA SSD (as opposed to M.2 PCIe) and use an USB 3 enclosure for M.2 SATA drives. Perhaps you'd want to mount it into a PC first to disable the special caching that uses some flash cells as SLC.

      This can possibly do 500MB/s both ways.

  16. So what's the station wagon bandwidth now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Andrew Tanenbaum said: "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway."
    This bandwidth has been increasing as tapes have been progressively replaced with denser and denser media.
    So what's the bandwidth for a station wagon full of 400GB microSD cards going at 60 mph?