>>> Memory Card Benchmark Result Database

[EngrPaul]

My results were on battery power after a hard reset.

I do not like SPB's requirement to hard reset the device and use empty cards. I do not plan on using their product at this time, sorry for any disappointment.

[EngrPaul]

Thanks, I had refered to that information shortly after getting my X50v. Lots of new stuff on the market though... :approve:

Just as reference, we did a bunch of tests back in January...seems so long ago...the results are in a pdf file here...

www.choirguy.com/memory.pdf

[0gopogo]

My results were on battery power after a hard reset.

I do not like SPB's requirement to hard reset the device and use empty cards. I do not plan on using their product at this time, sorry for any disappointment.

Were do you get these requirements from, I am not aware of either. So far I have tested without hard resets and on empty as well as loaded cards.

[EngrPaul]

Well, I guess I'm guilty of reading all the messages and warnings. I've been lucky with PM, it has never corrupted data already on the storage card and works consistently regardless of what's installed.

[0gopogo]

I had that same experience with PM and also Spb Benchmark. Is there a disclaimer for Spb but not PM?

[EngrPaul]

I think PM has a disclaimer for card corruption only; I approached cautiously and gained confidence over time.

[0gopogo]

I still don't see why you think that Spb Benchmark requires an empty card and a hard reset. I admit to only reading manuals if dragged screaming and kicking. Do Spb document these two requirements anywhere?

[Minlas]

Hey guys nice thread, did anyone check out my post at
http://www.aximsite.com/boards/showthread.php?t=100546 ?

This thread confirms some of the feedback I had been getting and that is picking the newer larger "faster" SD/CF cards is a tough task. As I stated in that thread I have been out of the market for awhile and the latest data I had looked at was around Choirguy's pdf time maybe a little later. Of course ROM revision have changed, sizes of cards have changed and the tech seems to have changed.

Is it the larger size(diff tech perhaps) or the FAT32 vs. FAT16 or what that makes the 4GB cf and 2GB SDs trudge along compared to the 2GBCF and 1GB SDs? Seems to be a FAT32 thing as the A-data 2GB isn't a size issue for FAT16 no?

Right now for the 4GB Cf I am considering the Kingston Elite but of course that is only based on data of how the 2GB performed on CG's pdf. That logic if of course faultly as the A-data 1GB sd really moved along and the 2/4GB models trudged along. As for a 2GB sd no direction there either as already mentioned performance is device specific so most reviews information is irrelevant unless was done on an Axim X50v A05 firmware.

[EngrPaul]

I have a hunch the two 4GB Secure Digital cards I bought are currently from one source with different packaging/labeling schemes.

[Minlas]

-EngrPaul
I think that occurs more often that a lot of us would like as one can end up paying more for the exact same product under a different name. Of course several companies had the whole revision thing going on with cards that performance was based on which revision of card you got and if some cases this could only be found out after you got it home heh.

Of course now the issue seems more to be finding a 2GB(or larger) Sd that has the same speed of the better 1 GB SD cards and same for 4GB(or larger) cfs having the same speed as the 2GB cfs.

Do you think it is a FAT32 + AximX50v issue or slower memory?

Anyone have any recommendations for good 2GB Sds or 4GB cfs or care to post some benches of these cards as it seems we are low on data on the new larger cards.

[EngrPaul]

I think it has more to do with a different architecture of the memory interfaces (card and PDA) than the file allocation table. At least from my tests and what I have read on the internet from others who did the same.

The cards are designed to perform well in cameras and card readers, I think whether or not they work well in a PDA is a chip shot (literally).

[0gopogo]

I have a hunch the two 4GB Secure Digital cards I bought are currently from one source with different packaging/labeling schemes.

That is quite possible. I won't buy another 4GB SD until there is more choice, and hope Ridata will release a 4GB version of their superb 150x 2GB card.

Although I am very disappointed by the write speeds of the 4GB 150x Transcend in a card reader I do not complain about its speed in the x50v.

[0gopogo]

Minlas,

Regarding FAT16 vs Fat32, I'm convinced the effects can be ignored when using a card in a PDA. I have no numbers to back that up, only subjective observations.

FAT16 vs Fat32 plays a role when benchmarking is a card reader. Consider an empty Ridata 2GB 150x SD card. The columns are for sequential read, write then random access read, write speeds, in kB/s:

FAT16 --------------------------------    FAT32 --------------------------------
17290  15845   17323    3537  Y:\1MB      17825  11211   17323    2844  Y:\1MB
18395  15845   17290    3537  Y:\1MB      17860  11232   17290    2844  Y:\1MB
18686  15845   17685    3271  Y:\2MB      17685   3737   17685    2618  Y:\2MB
18674  15398   17860    3117  Y:\4MB      17834   5454   17860    2496  Y:\4MB
18703  15398   17750    3047  Y:\8MB      18044   7080   17770    2519  Y:\8MB
18686  15215   18156    3047  Y:\10MB     17685   7523   18188    2559  Y:\10MB
18823  13882   17902    3005  Y:\50MB     18611   8902   17802    2539  Y:\50MB
18882  13708   17805    3006  Y:\100MB    18723   8903   17756    2525  Y:\100MB

At larger file sizes the difference in write speed is dramatic. I have yet to confirm this in a real-world test. My gut feeling says that the speed difference won't be anywhere near the synthetic results.

By comparison, a 1GB Extreme III SD:

FAT16 --------------------------------    FAT32 --------------------------------
17825  10219   16817    3842  Y:\1MB	  17323  13080   16817    4458  Y:\1MB
17860  10593   16817    3737  Y:\1MB	  17323  12709   16817    4668  Y:\1MB
18686  11548   16759    3631  Y:\2MB	  18686  10326   17210    4087  Y:\2MB
19629  12780   17090    3740  Y:\4MB	  19140  10908   17090    4027  Y:\4MB
19389  13086   17174    3742  Y:\8MB	  17750  11636   17174    3882  Y:\8MB
19806  13931   17210    3830  Y:\10MB	  19248  12337   17210    3970  Y:\10MB
19497  15023   17060    3886  Y:\50MB	  19047  15094   17060    4015  Y:\50MB
19560  15238   16976    3907  Y:\100MB	  19441  14927   17018    4028  Y:\100MB

The EIII, in this card reader, actually likes FAT32 better.

I have checked the other thread. For your application i.e. a video player I would not worry about read speed on the PDA. It'll be fine. Write performance in a card reader and/or capacity/dollar has more relevance. If you are serious about capacity you need more than 2GB i.e. FAT16 is out of the question so don't worry about the file system issue in that case.

Since your application is more stationary than mobile and near a power supply I suggest to check out the high-capacity MicroDrives. Transfering video to a MicroDrive will take longer than copying it to a fast CF card:

FAT32 --------------------------------
 9088   2535    2921    1460  Y:\100MB

Comparing these numbers to the Ridata and SanDisk is not fair because those cards utilize the latest SD specification. To put the results into perspective consider a 1GB 60x Lexar Pro card in the same reader/writer:

FAT32 --------------------------------
 9360   5728    9124    1257  Y:\100MB

This shows that (in a card reader) the MD reads large files fast but is slow to write large files or reading smaller files at random. Only the large file write speed is of concern when tranfering video files.

So the MD is slow as a target for large video files in a card reader. On an absolute scale it is cheap, though. An Ultra II SD (and probably CF, too) writes large files over three times faster. The UII CF costs about twice per GB of storage than the 6GB MD. So, surprisingly, if speed is factored in, you get better value from an Ultra II. But still, the 6GB MD is $240, the 8GB CF UII is > $650. On an absolute scale the MicroDrive wins.

[Minlas]

Hrm I also pondered why FAT 16 vs FAT 32 would be making such a difference yet it seems that poor chips for all the 2GB vs 1GB sd and 4GB vs 2GB cfs seems really odd coincidence no? I thought it was less the file allocation table and more how well the PDA hardware or Os worked with it maybe. Hrm theorectically the below listed card by EngrPaul would perform equally poorly in FAT 16?

Brand: A-Data SD
Model: Turbo 150X
Size: 2 GB
File Allocation Table: FAT-32


I appreciate the feedback 0gopogo on my buying needs. I am on the road in cases where power consumption is an issue but I have 4 standard batteries so isn't so bad I suppose but I as well decided the CF and SD fit my needs more than the Microdrives as I do watch quite a bit of video on the PDA screen on batteries and would leave me needing several large storage spaces. I run program, store, apps, mp3s and use thespace of the cards for encylopedias etc. Really they make the machine if you ask me. I figure all things being even, sych as sometimes there isn't a great difference in price I am often moving large video files to the cards a faster write speed couldn't hurt. I may go 4GB CF + 4GB SD instead of 4GF CF + 2GB SD. As you said I doubt most of these speeds will be noticeable on the device itself. I replied on the other thread 0gopogo.

Update: Check out http://pocketpcmag.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=17921 seems my theory on the PPC not playing nicely with FAT32 may be right.

[0gopogo]

Thanks for the link. Like I wrote on the other thread, cluster size does affect card performance in a very noticable manner.

Aargh, don't know how I could forget about cluster size. A 2GB card must use a cluster size of no less that 32k when formatted with FAT16. The default cluster size for FAT32 is 4k. So it is really not too surprising that FAT16 performs better with many/most >= 2GB cards.

To x-check I ran the Ridata 150x 2GB formatted with FAT32 and 16k clusters through HDBench and Spb Benchmark just now.

The FAT32 results are clearly better now in both card reader and Axim than the ones I got for 4k clusters. See the other thread for details.

I don't seem to be able to format FAT32 with 32k clusters for a fair FAT16/FAT32 comparison. format.exe gives an error message saying that the cluster size is too large for the file system . SKTools does not work at all.

IMO the 2GB Ridata 150x SD is a really nice card; can't comment on the 4GB CF Kingston because I bever had one. The price is right - there even was a time when you could get it for $190 after @ newegg.com. And it should give you better write speeds in a card reader than the MicroDrive.

So here are the details I promised on the other thread.

Empty card FAT32, SC 1.1 card reader.

4k clusters                               16k clusters
--------------------------------------    --------------------------------------
17825  11211   17323    2844  Y:\1MB	  17825  11883   16817    2909  Y:\1MB
17860  11232   17290    2844  Y:\1MB	  17825  12379   16817    2844  Y:\1MB
17685   3737   17685    2618  Y:\2MB	  18188  13086   17210    2618  Y:\2MB
17834   5454   17860    2496  Y:\4MB	  18258  12468   17454    2519  Y:\4MB
18044   7080   17770    2519  Y:\8MB	  18703  10265   17466    2483  Y:\8MB
17685   7523   18188    2559  Y:\10MB	  18686  10068   17210    2481  Y:\10MB
18611   8902   17802    2539  Y:\50MB	  18720   9957   17612    2462  Y:\50MB
18723   8903   17756    2525  Y:\100MB	  18830   9913   17612    2457  Y:\100MB

I bet that with 32k clusters - which is what you get when a 2GB card is formatted with FAT16 - the results would be even closer to the FAT16 results. I also re-ran SPB Benchmark.

Empty card FAT32, x50v A03 ROM, on battery power.

4k clusters
-----------

Writing 1 MB file              1029 ms   995 KB/sec  
Reading 1 MB file               352 ms  2.84 MB/sec  
Writing 100 of 10 KB files     9591 ms   107 KB/sec  
Reading 100 of 10 KB files      564 ms  1.77 MB/sec  
Directory listing: 2000 files   147 ms  13.6 thousands of files/sec 
Speed index 214

16k clusters
------------

Writing 1 MB file               582 ms  1760 KB/sec  
Reading 1 MB file               349 ms  2.87 MB/sec  
Writing 100 of 10 KB files     8983 ms   114 KB/sec  
Reading 100 of 10 KB files      590 ms  1.69 MB/sec  
Directory listing: 2000 files   147 ms  13.6 thousands of files/sec  
Speed index 218

Note how the write speeds picked up.

I guess I'll recheck that 4GB Transcend card with FAT32/16k clusters sometimes. But I'd prefer to use 32k clusters. I'd appreciate any pointers to a tool that can format FAT32 32k clusters on WinXP.