Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Memory Cards, Microdrives, Card Readers

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 9, 2008, 1:07 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

You got me doubting my initial impression, so I checked.

From the data in Rob Galbraith's CF/SD Performance Database, I found 155 instances where larger CF cards were slower than smaller CF cards of the same manufacturer and model, and 67 instances where they were faster.

The difference was greater for Canon ( 114 vs. 39 )than for Nikon ( 41 vs. 28 ), but it was true for both. I don't know why it happens, nor will I speculate, but it happens.

Another curious thing is that Kingston CF cards were consistantly faster the larger they were, but most other brands were usually slower the larger they were.

If you want to see the Excel Spreadsheet, PM your e-mail address to me, and I'll send it to you.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2008, 1:20 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

"The difference was greater for Canon ( 114 vs. 39 )"

Of course my wife told Mom to buy the Canon for my Christmas gift, lol. As I said above, in order to keep peace in the family we'll just skip a StarBuck and pay the extra for the faster card.

Thanks for the information,

Craig
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2008, 8:41 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 2,053
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
You got me doubting my initial impression, so I checked.

From the data in Rob Galbraith's CF/SD Performance Database, I found 155 instances where larger CF cards were slower than smaller CF cards of the same manufacturer and model, and 67 instances where they were faster.

The difference was greater for Canon ( 114 vs. 39 )than for Nikon ( 41 vs. 28 ), but it was true for both. I don't know why it happens, nor will I speculate, but it happens.

I don't doubt you but my real world test is.....

I use both a 2GB sandisc Ultra II CF card and a 4GB PQI 100x CF card and the test I did shows that the download time for 512MB of files is within8 to10seconds of upload time everytime and the 4GB card is uploading faster for me everytime. So for a 2GB full card the difference is 32 to 40 seconds (less than a minute) between the two cards. Less than a minute for 2Gb of data is not that big of a deal for me.

Using a laptop with 2GB of ram and USB 2.0 card reader.

dave
Photo 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2008, 9:46 AM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
From the data in Rob Galbraith's CF/SD Performance Database, I found 155 instances where larger CF cards were slower than smaller CF cards of the same manufacturer and model, and 67 instances where they were faster.
I think you guys are missing what's important (or, at least what I think is important).

If you buy the current generation of a given card brand/model (where they are more likely to be using the same type of components like the controller and memory cells), there is going to be very little difference in performance due to card size from what I've seen.

IOW, if a 4GB card tests at 9.5MB/Second, and an 8GB card tests at 9.3MB/Second (or vice-versa), who really cares? ;-)

They're going to be so close, that the differences in things you care about (like cycle times when the buffer is full, flush times to the card, etc.) are going to be insignificant in real world use.

All of this has nothing to do with the Original Poster's issue anyway. He's wondering why the transfer times from a Sony Memory Stick Pro are faster than a new Sandisk Ultra II CompactFlash card.

A Sandisk Ultra II CompactFlash is going to "run circles around" most Memory Stick Pro media for write speeds, regardless of size. However, some of the newer Sony Memory Stick Pro Duo media has read performance as fast as 20MB/Second (about twice as fast as the Ultra II), even though write speed stinks. Other variables also enter the equation (like the method of transfer, camera or card reader, etc.).

He's using two totally different memory types here, and IMO, card size is the least likely source of his issue with transfer speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_...ransfer_speeds

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2008, 9:48 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

Thanks again for all the information, as always it's a big help.

Just a thought, if the wife keeps complaining about the download speed of the cards, I'll tell her it's not the card but the computer. Maybe I could get a new quad cpu computer out of her that way.:GWell maybe.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2008, 9:31 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 105
Default

Don't forget that card readers vary a lot as well. I have 2, one is a generic umpteen slots for all types of card and it downloads at only 4-5Mb/s with any fast memory, the other is a Zio Thunderbolt which is just for SD and Sony Memory sticks and it does about 19Mb/s with a x150 Transcend card.
SteveB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2008, 12:23 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Photo 5 wrote:
Quote:
I use both a 2GB sandisc Ultra II CF card and a 4GB PQI 100x CF card and the test I did shows that the download time for 512MB of files is within8 to10seconds of upload time everytime and the 4GB card is uploading faster for me everytime. So for a 2GB full card the difference is 32 to 40 seconds (less than a minute) between the two cards. Less than a minute for 2Gb of data is not that big of a deal for me.

Using a laptop with 2GB of ram and USB 2.0 card reader.
You're comparing a 2GB SanDisk Ultra II to a 4GB PQI 100x. SanDisk doesn'tspecify "X" values, but their website lists 10MBs minimum sequential read speed and 9MBs minimum sequential write speed for the Ultra II card. The "X" values are borrowed from CDs where a single speed drive reads 150KBs, the speed of a typical music CD player. So that would make the Ultra II a 70x card (roughly).

Your test proves that a 100x card is faster than a 70x card, not that a 4GB card is faster than a 2GB card.

I said that capacity was one factor in the speed of a card, not that it was the factor in the speed of a card.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2008, 1:44 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 2,053
Default

Yes TCav I see what you are saying. for me a minute of difference for 2GB download is not that bad. However i want to add that with my new 16BG transcend 133x card it is the fastest in the download catagory at this time. A full 5 seconds faster that the other cards per 512MB of data. Only test it with 1GB of photos loaded.



dave
Photo 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2008, 3:00 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

SteveB wrote:
Quote:
Don't forget that card readers vary a lot as well. I have 2, one is a generic umpteen slots for all types of card and it downloads at only 4-5Mb/s with any fast memory, the other is a Zio Thunderbolt which is just for SD and Sony Memory sticks and it does about 19Mb/s with a x150 Transcend card.
That's a goodpoint to keep in mind, seeing as I just notice that my laptop doesn't take CF cards. It take all the other type of cards but not CF, so I'll be needing a card reader for the laptop come vacation time.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2008, 9:55 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

Update::?

After reading all the great information given in this thread, I did go out and buy a new 2gig CF card just in case I need the memory space. Found a great solution to the price problem, pick up the 2gig CF x133 Ultra 3 card by San Disk for free. Seeing as Best Buy was nice enough to send me enough Best Buy bucks, for all the Christmas shopping we did there this year. It was like getting the card for free and free does feel good. Good thing too that I did buy the second card, as I went to shoot a event the next day and needed the card, no didn't need the second card because I ran out of space. My first card (no it didn't go bad on me, stay with me) was left at home in the computer. I forgot to take the card out after downloading some pictures and didn't notice until I took the camera out of the bag to get ready.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:08 PM.