Fastest SD cards?

As you might see from my other posts today, I have been having problems with my SD cards. What is the fastest one? I have a PNY 256mb card and it seems slow. Does it make a difference what you buy?

[jam269]

From reading this and other forums/places, it seems that 99% of cards available today are all faster than the Axim can handle, so it doesn't matter which card you get, as far as speed is concerned. Perhaps you have a bum card? :scratch_h

[NiwRoC]

Choirguy has did some test on different 1GB cards. CF and SD. Here is the link for his review. Like jam269 stated the Axim can only work so fast.'

http://www.choirguy.com/memory.pdf

[MX30user]

does he mean uploading to it or using it on the axim? If you mean uploading onto it, it might be a slow card, but otherwise, it doesn't really matter what speed it is at.

[Vric]

I'm preaty pleased with my Lexar 32x card.

I got a sandisk card before, and returned it the same day. Way to slow. (256mb normal version)

the brand/make of the SD card does make a big difference in the Axim even though all SD cards are, in absolute terms, capable of higher speeds than the Axim can handle.

Some cards simply provide better performance in the Axim than others. Lexar is one of the better performers, so apparently are Adata (?) and ATP.


And yeah some PNY cards are made by Toshiba whose cards (while cheap and reliable) are very very slow in USB 2.0 card readers, and apparently fairly slow in the Axim as well.

In a SanDisk Ultra card, information travels at a speed of 186,000 miles a second - - that's fast!

SanDisk Ultra flash cards are rated at 9MB/sec write, and 10MB/sec read, and claim a low power drain. There's no "X" rating. (Their 1GB CF card won the race on DPReview.com.)

Most of us have digital cameras, which seem to work better with a faster card.
A plain SanDisk 1GB SD card was packaged with my X50v. I can't find a rating on those, and it doesn't matter in the Axim - - only that it works.

What devices function better with faster cards, whether speed, or power drain? Would a card like this benefit the battery performance of the X50v?

And what are the better cards?

The X standard used by the flash memory industry is the same as that used by the compact disc industry:

One "X" = 150KB/sec

Usually fast cards are only a real help if you are frequently transferring large quantities of data over a USB connection or if you are using a camera that benefits from high write speeds.

The power drain is negligible for any SD or CF card (flash memory only, not microdrive CF cards etc.).

Aside:
As for Sandisk's Ultra II card claim...186,000 miles/second is the speed of light. I'm not sure electrons can travel quite that fast yet in conventional electronics.

I tested out a 512MB Sandisk Ultra II SD card in a USB2 card reader recently, and it averaged only 7MB/sec or so. One of my 1GB normal speed Lexar SD cards wrote at 6MB/sec in a test a day or two earlier.

The X standard used by the flash memory industry is the same as that used by the compact disc industry:

One "X" = 150KB/sec

Usually fast cards are only a real help if you are frequently transferring large quantities of data over a USB connection or if you are using a camera that benefits from high write speeds.

The power drain is negligible for any SD or CF card (flash memory only, not microdrive CF cards etc.).

Aside:
As for Sandisk's Ultra II card claim...186,000 miles/second is the speed of light. I'm not sure electrons can travel quite that fast yet in conventional electronics.

I tested out a 512MB Sandisk Ultra II SD card in a USB2 card reader recently, and it averaged only 7MB/sec or so. One of my 1GB normal speed Lexar SD cards wrote at 6MB/sec in a test a day or two earlier.

The speed of light reference was an attempt at humor -- I assumed electrons traveled at the speed of light. They don't?
ScanDisk's Ultra II SD and CF cards were the only ones that had write and read speeds listed.

How did you measure the transfer speed?

I found some info on the cards:

The BIG cards were tested here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03...biggestcfs.asp
They used the ultra II card, with speeds just over 4MB/sec.


The SanDisk Ultra II CompactFlash cards have a minimum sustained write speed of 9MB per second and a read speed of 10MB per second. http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_t...02#description


SanDisk's Ultra CompactFlash is a line of high-speed storage cards specifically designed for use in the rapidly growing market of high-performance digital cameras.
In advanced cameras, these cards have been developed to save large image files to the card as quickly as possible so the camera will be ready to take the next picture. If features a copy/download transfer rate of up to 2.8MB/s, http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_t...29#description

Description:SanDisk Extreme CompactFlash cards deliver a sustained write speed of up to 9 Megabytes per second and sustained read speed of 10 Megabytes per second.
http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_g...gb%20cf%20card

Yep, I've got too much time on my hands.

The speed of light reference was an attempt at humor -- I assumed electrons traveled at the speed of light. They don't?

I'm pretty sure they don't--especially not in solid substances.

How did you measure the transfer speed?

Stopwatch, empty card, defragged clean system, single file transfer, USB2 card reader, USB2 port....primitive but realistic. There is some variation between computers, but not a whole lot, and sustained write speeds are very consistent for each system. With the results of benchmark programs like pocket mechanic (or was it another one?) being questioned recently, the manual method doesnt seem all that bad.

Yep, I've got too much time on my hands.

Probably not as bad as me....:p

I found an Apacer one at Newegg that I think I'm going to get that's rated at 9MB/sec write speeds. :) It's also the cheapest one there atm.

From reading this and other forums/places, it seems that 99% of cards available today are all faster than the Axim can handle, so it doesn't matter which card you get, as far as speed is concerned. Perhaps you have a bum card? :scratch_h

From test conducted by others and my real world experience, it matters a great deal which card you get. Sure all cards have decent theoretical speeds but first of all, it's not likely that you will see those theoretical speeds in the real world. Next, some card's simply work better in some devices. There is plenty of information to support this. Some cards have a reputation of trouble with some devices. Search this forum and you'll find plenty of information to make a good decision.

I found an Apacer one at Newegg that I think I'm going to get that's rated at 9MB/sec write speeds. :) It's also the cheapest one there atm.

You'll probably be OK, but just so you know a 512MB Sandisk Ultra II SD card I tried out the other day didn't quite meet up to expectations in a USB2 reader. It's rated at a 9MB/sec minimum write speed but the highest speed it attained was 7.12MB/sec.

Very fast, but not up to specs. My 1GB Lexar normal's highest speed ever was 6MB/sec in comparison.