I used the sd_cardinfo+ program created by MitchellShnier on my SanDisk 1GB card that has approx 150M free and got these results: (I would like to see the results from 1GB card tests and see how this "plain jane" compares to the others.)
-----------------------------------------
SD_CardInfo+ -- Jan 26 at 5:59
Card Identification (CID) register:
Manufacturer ID: 03 (SanDisk)
OEM/Application ID: SD
Product name: SD01G
Product revision: 8.0
Serial number: 5035616C
Manufacture date: September, 209117
Data bus width currently: 1 bit
Card Specific Data (CSD) register:
CSD structure version: 1.100
Reserved: 03
Read access time (+clock): Invalid x 1 µs
Read access time: 65 x 100 clocks
Transfer rate: 5.0 x 100 kbits/s
Command classes: 0 1 2 4 10
Read block length: 1 bytes
**I edited some of this out for space reasons
Write duration: 1 x read time
Max. write-block length: 256
**I edited some of this out for space reasons
SD Card Status register:
Bus width changed to: 1 bit
Card in secured mode: No
Reserved: 0000
SD v1.01 Memory Card: Yes
Reserved: 0
SD Card Type: Read/Write
Size of protected area: 40
Protected area: 0 bytes
------------------------------------------------
Hopefully I'm correct in reading this data and if MitchellShnier is around maybe he can validate what I'm seeing.
If you notice the transfer rate and compare to some of the posts in
this thread (http://www.pdastreet.com/forums//showthread.php?s=&threadid=37436) , you'll see quite a difference.
Is there a way to force the Q into 4 bit mode or is purely up to the app to direct it into this mode?
As you can see, this card is sssllllooooowwwww (compared to the other cards in the posts) and now I know what the redraw issue is about on this card (not totally unusable but noticeably slower, at least in a populated area).
To the members that have 1GB cards, please post your 1GB card rates. If you can focus on the read and transfer rates, thats what I think we need.
NParker, I think I read a post of yours about you having a 60x 1GB card. Can you do the test too please?
Thanks in advance,
JohnJ
01-26-2005, 07:08 PM
A Lexar 1G SD Card with 217.5 MB Free of 975.6 Mb
****=Data omitted for space reasons as per Rick's data
Card Identification (CID) register:
Manufacturer ID: 15
OEM/Application ID: MC
Product name: SMI
Product revision: 0.0
Serial number: 0000278A
Manufacture date: December, 2004
Data bus width currently: 1 bit
Card Specific Data (CSD) register:
CSD structure version: 1.00
Reserved: 00
Read access time (+clock): 8.0 x 10 ms
Read access time: 0 x 100 clocks
Transfer rate: 2.5 x 10 Mbits/s
Command classes: 0 2 4 5 6 7 8
Read block length: 512 bytes
************
Write duration: 32 x read time
Max. write-block length: 512
************
SD Card Status register:
Bus width changed to: 1 bit
Card in secured mode: Yes
Reserved: 0000
SD v1.01 Memory Card: Yes
Reserved: 0
SD Card Type: Read/Write
Size of protected area: 58
Protected area: 15204352 bytes
I'm not quite sure what all this means Rick......but anyway here's the information.
nparker13
01-26-2005, 10:09 PM
I have a "60x ATP 1GB SD card" that i got off of eCost.com. My tests follow.
I also attached a pic of the card, just playing w/ my new Verizon Mot v710 (which sucks).
File Create: 245%
File Delete: 207%
File Write: 85%
File Read: 736%
File Seek: 655%
DB Export: 243%
DB Import: 620%
Record Access: 882%
Resource Access: 800%
VFSMark: 497
SD_CardInfo+ -- Jan 26 at 11:05
Manufacturer ID: 00
Product name:
Product revision: 87.6
Manufacture date: June, 20487
Data bus width currently: 1 bit
Read access time (+clock): Invalid x 1 ns
Read access time: 172 x 100 clocks
Transfer rate: 4.5 x 100 kbits/s
Write duration: 1 x read time
Partial-block writes allowed: No
4-bit data bus width supported: Yes
1-bit data bus width supported: No
SD_CardInfo+ -- Jan 26 at 11:05
Card Identification (CID) register:
Manufacturer ID: 00
OEM/Application ID:
Product name:
Product revision: 87.6
Serial number: 08760853
Manufacture date: June, 20487
Data bus width currently: 1 bit
Card Specific Data (CSD) register:
CSD structure version: 1.00
Reserved: 00
Read access time (+clock): Invalid x 1 ns
Read access time: 172 x 100 clocks
Transfer rate: 4.5 x 100 kbits/s
Command classes: 0 1 3 5 9 10
Read block length: 16 bytes
Partial-block reads allowed: Yes
Allow write-block misalignment: Yes
Read-block misalignment allowed: Yes
Configurable driver current: Yes
Reserved: 01
C_Size: 2222
Max. read current: 35 mA to 35 mA
Max. write current: 60 mA to 35 mA
C_Size_Mult: 74
Mult: 0
Number of blocks: 0
Single write-block erase allowed: Yes
Erasable sector size: 109 blocks
Write-protected group: 9 sectors
Group write-protect supported: No
Reserved: 03
Write duration: 1 x read time
Max. write-block length: 2048 bytes
Partial-block writes allowed: No
Reserved: 0C
File format group: 0
Card data is: Copy (Not original)
Permanently write-protected: Yes
Temporarily write-protected: No
Card file format: Hard-disk, with partition table
Card capacity (excluding security protected area) is (Read Block Length x (C_Size+1) x Mult) = 0 bytes, which is about 0 Mbytes
Card Specific Data (SCR) register:
SCR structure version: 1.5
Physical layer specification: 1.7
Data erases to: 0
Security algorithm: 5
4-bit data bus width supported: Yes
1-bit data bus width supported: No
Reserved: : 4244
Reserved: 00000025
SD Card Status register:
Bus width changed to: 1 bit
Card in secured mode: No
Reserved: 0000
SD v1.01 Memory Card: Yes
Reserved: 18
SD Card Type: ROM
Size of protected area: 0
Protected area: 0 bytes
SD Card Status register:
0000 0025 4244 0000
------------------------------------------------------
NewQ
01-27-2005, 05:35 AM
My Lexar 1GB $59 card has the same transfer rate and write rates as my San Disk.
*****
Transfer rate: 5.0 x 100 kbits/s
Read block length: 1 bytes
Write duration: 1 x read time
***
Now compare this to John J's at 10Mbits/sec
NParker's is at 100kbit too and his is a 60x card.
NewQ
01-27-2005, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by nparker13
I have a "60x ATP 1GB SD card" that i got off of eCost.com. My tests follow.
***Edited for brevity by Rick
------------------------------------------------------
VFSMark Results
File Create: 245%
File Delete: 207%
File Write: 85%
File Read: 736%
File Seek: 655%
DB Export: 243%
DB Import: 620%
Record Access: 882%
Resource Access: 800%
VFSMark: 497
SD_CardInfo+ -- Jan 26 at 11:05
Manufacturer ID: 00
Product name:
Product revision: 87.6
Manufacture date: June, 20487
Data bus width currently: 1 bit
Read access time (+clock): Invalid x 1 ns
Read access time: 172 x 100 clocks
Transfer rate: 4.5 x 100 kbits/s
Write duration: 1 x read time
Partial-block writes allowed: No
4-bit data bus width supported: Yes
1-bit data bus width supported: No
Here are the VFSMark for my SanDisk:
VFSMark Results
File Create: 557%
File Delete: 365%
File Write: 228%
File Read: 748%
File Seek: 694%
DB Export: 588%
DB Import: 838%
Record Access: 905%
Resource Access: 834%
VFSMark: 639
---------------------------
I'm not sure what all this means but I'm concerned why our cards have such a sucky read and write rate on SD_Cardinfo.
Yours appears to always be in 4bit mode since 1 bit is not supported but above it says it's in 1 bit mode????
Is the SD_cardinfo rates showing "in 1bit mode"? Directions state that but I sure there are interpretations.
I don't know if I can change the number of bits it operates on.
Anyone got any ideas about this?
NewQ
01-27-2005, 03:19 PM
After reading all the posts about SD-cardinfo and playing around with it repeatedly on my Q, I realize that:
1) if you tap on any of the tabs in SD_cardinfo after the read, the data is changed
2) some data is corrupted (appearing) once you change tabs, which taints the rest of it, in my eyes.
Here are the results of my SanDisk from the initial screen:
SD_CardInfo+ -- Jan 27 at 2:35
Manufacturer ID: 03 (SanDisk)
Product name: SD01G
Product revision: 8.0
Manufacture date: November, 2004
Data bus width currently: 1 bit
Read access time (+clock): 1.5 x 1 ms
Read access time: 0 x 100 clocks
Transfer rate: 2.5 x 10 Mbits/s
Write duration: 16 x read time
Partial-block writes allowed: No
4-bit data bus width supported: Yes
1-bit data bus width supported: Yes
**
1500uSec (1.5x1000uSec) to read data and it's a 16x card(is this how they market?) that takes 24000uSec (16x1500uSec) to write.
**
And my Lexar
SD_CardInfo+ -- Jan 27 at 3:04
Manufacturer ID: 15
Product name: MSI
Product revision: 0.0
Manufacture date: December, 2004
Data bus width currently: 1 bit
Read access time (+clock): 8.0 x 10 ms
Read access time: 0 x 100 clocks
Transfer rate: 2.5 x 10 Mbits/s
Write duration: 32 x read time
Partial-block writes allowed: Yes
4-bit data bus width supported: Yes
1-bit data bus width supported: Yes
**
80,000uSec (8x10,000uSec) to read data and it's a 32x card(Is this how they market?) that takes 2,560,000uSec (32x80,000uSec) to write data (this would explain why it took 17min to write a 700MB file to the card)
**
JohnJ, looks like the Lexar are the slowest cards of what we both
have. (according to SD_Cardinfo)
NParker, can you run yours again and don't switch tabs so we can compare apples to apples please? I just ordered a 60x card and I'd like to see what it'll be like in the Q.
I know this horse has been beaten badly in the past but some of us are still learning. Anyone else have something to input on this?
Thanks,
nparker13
01-27-2005, 03:57 PM
I ran SD card info +, tapped read, tapped memo, and exited.
-nate
SD_CardInfo+ -- Jan 27 at 4:54
Manufacturer: Unknown
Manufacturer ID: 09
Product name: AF SD
Product revision: 0.0
Manufacture date: December, 2004
Data bus width currently: 1 bit
Read access time (+clock): 8.0 x 10 ms
Read access time: 0 x 100 clocks
Transfer rate: 2.5 x 10 Mbits/s
Write duration: 32 x read time
Partial-block writes allowed: Yes
4-bit data bus width supported: Yes
1-bit data bus width supported: Yes
NewQ
01-27-2005, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by nparker13
I ran SD card info +, tapped read, tapped memo, and exited.
-nate
SD_CardInfo+ -- Jan 27 at 4:54
Manufacturer: Unknown
Manufacturer ID: 09
Product name: AF SD
Product revision: 0.0
Manufacture date: December, 2004
Data bus width currently: 1 bit
Read access time (+clock): 8.0 x 10 ms
Read access time: 0 x 100 clocks
Transfer rate: 2.5 x 10 Mbits/s
Write duration: 32 x read time
Partial-block writes allowed: Yes
4-bit data bus width supported: Yes
1-bit data bus width supported: Yes
Thanks man.
Looks like a Lexar card except for the name & ID. Blows my idea that they market the card by how many x the write was to the read (which in our examples makes them SLOWER, not faster).
I don't know what to make of the data, do you? Slow VFS vs a "plain jane"and nothing different via SD-Cardinfo yet they sell it as 60x. Mine shipped today (Kingmax Platinum) and was hoping that these results would be more encouraging.
I've read so many posts in the last 2 days that I don't remember if you have a huge detailed map file on yours or not. I was hoping that he 60x would redraw faster than the "plain jane" but now not so sure. I'll have 3 now to compare against each other.
MitchellShnier
01-27-2005, 07:03 PM
When I wrote the SD_CardInfo+ utility, the documentation I used was for version 1.0 and version 1.01 of the SD card's registers. I see from some of the posts, that the "CSD Structure Version" is now 1.1, so the use and position of the bit-fields in the registers may have changed.
For example, the "Manufacture Date" used to be given as bits 8 through 19 of the CID register, expressed as an offset from the year 2000, in BCD, with the first two digits being the year, and the last digit the month. This seems to have been changed in the new card register structure (which is why my utility displays a wrong value for the year -- or else I made a programming error!).
Anyways from http://www.sandisk.com/oem/manuals.asp I see they now allow only SD Card Association members to download the current version of the SD card specification (they used to allow anyone to download the 113-page specification from there), so I cannot update my utility.
The version I used was v1.9, December 2003. If someone can get me the new register layout, I could update the utility. Until then, none of the values displayed by SD_CardInfo+ can be trusted for new SD cards.
0gopogo
01-27-2005, 07:58 PM
NewQ,
There is a long, long thread dealing with 1GB SD cards and their speeds. What I write here is a rehash of my post on page 9 (http://www.pdastreet.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=46770&perpage=15&highlight=daneelec%20dasd1024d&pagenumber=9) of that thread. That post has a ZIP attachment with detailed SD_CardInfo+, VFSMark, and HDBench results.
---
I do not own a SanDisk 1GB but I use or did use several cards of increasing sizes from different vendors. SanDisk 256, SanDisk 512 Ultra II, Dane-Elec 1GB, and SimpleTech 1GB. I ran these cards through SD_CardInfo+, VFSMark, and HDBench. The 256 SanDisk was decent according to VFSMark (430) and subjective judgment when using it in the iQue. It was way too slow in HDBench - I aborted the test. My interpretation of the HDBench results is:
Those 3 remaining cards delivered VFSMarks between 510 and 640, depending on test conditions. They all perform equally well in the iQue and the digital camera (continuous VGA video at 30fps until the card is full). The Ultra II is noticeably the fastest card in a card reader/writer which is why I use it in my Bonzai thumb drive. The iQue has the SimpleTech. The Dane-Elec was in the camera. It was 100$ when I bought it and can now be had for about 80$.
If I simply wanted the fastest card I would buy an Ultra II. SanDisk announced the 1GB and 2GB Ultra IIs a long time ago but it still seems to be impossible to buy any right now. Some online shops quote an ETA of end of March!
Conversely both the Dane-Elec and SimpleTech deliver smooth MP3 playback with the iQue. The Ultra II has dropouts.
NewQ
01-27-2005, 09:50 PM
Mitchell,
Thanks for taking the time to have a look and thanks for your efforts on your fine app. I thought something had possibly changed because of the weird outputs when switching from the initial screen to the others. I hope someone on this forum can help you in getting ahold of the new specs. then we can start this all over again ;)
0gopogo,
I got so wrapped up in the SD_cardinfo that it even controlled my search strings. Search doesn't like "SD" - wants 3 letters at least. I read so many posts that I could hardly see anymore (in fact, I'm not sure what I've read anymore - sometimes this forum will do this to ya ;) ). I remember reading a lot of the thread you're talking about but it seemed to focus on Transcend cards for a long time and I probably had to quit for a while and never made it back to that one.
Ultra II - I tried searching for Ultra II 1GB cards and couldn't find any. Knew from all the reading that these cards were fast but no luck finding them.
What I don't quite get yet is the 32x and 60x speeds. All the test apps that have been used never seemed to point to the ability to be that fast. I read somewhere that 1X is 150kB, so 60x.... should be damn fast at something.
VFS results proved the 60x slower than normal cards (at least in avg). SD_Cardinfo results didn't show any difference (now we know why) . I vaguely remember using an app like "HD Bench" many years ago. Maybe by Western Digital or something like that. I presume that you're testing the SD like a HD in a card reader. Is the app you used still available?
CC posted "AFAIK, all the double fast cards require hardware that is designed to take advantage of the new technology. Without this, they still work but at a normal speed...." in that thread. No one, that I remember, ever mentioned if they knew if the Q could even handle these fast cards or if we're seeing the "normal speed".
The Data bus width of 1 or 4 bits is interesting too. Don't know if the Q is ready for 4 bits or at least we're guessing it's not?
Anyway, thanks for the replies. I'll keep reading when my eyes clear up and if I find anything I'll let the group know.
BTW, how'd you ever beat CC to sending me to that thread? CC, what's up with that - sleepin' on the job ;)
Curious Cat
01-28-2005, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by NewQ
BTW, how'd you ever beat CC to sending me to that thread? CC, what's up with that - sleepin' on the job ;)
The question of relative speeds for SD cards and/or which card is better, has been beat to death so much on this forum that I've started to ignore it. The good news is that since most members have gotten away from the early 256MB SanDisk cards (Bokkie's Turd), we haven't had to deal with a lot of SD introduced problems lately. Now I'll go back to my cat nap.:D
JMckie
01-28-2005, 08:21 AM
I know what you mean CC. My question is: at this time, can you still make a mistake choosing a card? Are there SD cards that are dogs? Or are the differences so minor that you need utilities to tell them apart?
Curious Cat
01-28-2005, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by JMckie
I know what you mean CC. My question is: at this time, can you still make a mistake choosing a card? Are there SD cards that are dogs? Or are the differences so minor that you need utilities to tell them apart?
I don't think you can pick a bad one anymore but with map draw speed, faster is always preferable. OTOH, there does not seem to be necessarily a direct correlation between stated or test speeds and actual performance.
NewQ
01-28-2005, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Curious Cat
The question of relative speeds for SD cards and/or which card is better, has been beat to death so much on this forum that I've started to ignore it. The good news is that since most members have gotten away from the early 256MB SanDisk cards (Bokkie's Turd), we haven't had to deal with a lot of SD introduced problems lately. Now I'll go back to my cat nap.:D
I definitely agree (and mentioned it) that speed had been beat to death. I didn't realize that the 1GB cards were singled out in a thread until I stumbled onto it while searching on SD_cardinfo. Had I seen that humongous thread I would have stayed silently confused, more than likely.
I also agree that all the posts still didn't provide any results that showed whether 32x-60x were any faster than "plain jane". And they seem to be slower than the ultraII - so what "X" speed are they or does the Q do a better job with them. That's what I was looking for. I did learn alot though through all this though. Can't wait until Mitchell gets the specs he needs to update his app. May not be the ultimate answer, as he mentioned, but it should help.
Slowly moving forward with red eyes.... :D
Curious Cat
01-28-2005, 02:12 PM
NewQ,
Here's my opinion and I’ll start out by saying this is pure conjecture with no facts to back it up:
I believe that the technology to make the faster cards today (not including the very new fast ones that need different hardware to run at the higher speeds) costs the manufacturer very little if anything extra to make over the older, slower ones. Since it's easier to produce a large quantity the same as opposed to differently, I think that all the 1Gig and larger cards are now all on the fast end and the only real difference within the same manufacturer is the labeling and marketing. In other words, the Lexar 1Gig plain, is the same specs (with maybe some minor tweaking) as the Lexar 32X 1 Gig, IMO. The one with the 32X label sells for more and the extra is all profit. It could also be that the ones that don't test out well enough are not given the higher labeling but even then the speed difference is probably not that great.
Maybe I'm skeptical but I'm sure the Swedes would tell you that "Haagen-Dazs" means nothing in Swedish (or any language) but labeling it so caused it to be able to sell at a premium.
This article compares SanDisk 1GB Ultra II, ATP 2GB, Lexar 1GB plain, Panasonic 256MB. The author says that ATP use the same controller across their 512M 1G, 2G cards, and that the 2GB Ultra II will use the same memory and controller as the 1GB.
Plain Lexar should be fine according to that article. ATP finishes first.
The article has some real life tests, too, e.g. "ATP SD Card rolled up in Peanut Butter" and "ATP SD Card drowning in a bottle of Gatorade" :). Check it out.
> NewQ wrote:
> ...
> I presume that you're testing the SD like a HD in a card reader.
> Is the app you used still available?
> ...
Yes, although I remember that it was difficult to find a not-too-old version on a non-Japanese web site. I don't recall where I found it. On top of that HDBench is compressed using LHArc - not ZIP - so you may have to find a working lharc.exe, too. HD Tach (http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php?request=HdTach) (used in the auphanonline article) is a newer test program. However, the free version only tests sequential read times (i.e. no random access read and no write tests at all).
NewQ
01-30-2005, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by 0gopogo
...Yes, although I remember that it was difficult to find a not-too-old version on a non-Japanese web site. I don't recall where I found it. On top of that HDBench is compressed using LHArc - not ZIP - so you may have to find a working lharc.exe, too. HD Tach (http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php?request=HdTach) (used in the auphanonline article) is a newer test program. However, the free version only tests sequential read times (i.e. no random access read and no write tests at all).
I new there was a reason to keep all those floppies :D I knew it, I knew it, .... I probably have a version of it. DOS to the rescue!! Now if XP will allow it to run in compatibility mode .... or I'll have to dust off the '98 machine. Hmmm, card reader in '98 ....
Anyway, I'll have to dust off the cases of them and reminisce ...
NewQ
01-30-2005, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Curious Cat
The one with the 32X label sells for more and the extra is all profit. It could also be that the ones that don't test out well enough are not given the higher labeling but even then the speed difference is probably not that great.
After reading the article 0gopogo pointed us to, I wholehearted agree, just based on the "controller" that is used by each manufacturer. I also think our benchmark tests showing that the 32X - 60X cards as being the same or slower than their "plain jane" siblings bears some of this truth out.
NewQ
01-30-2005, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by 0gopogo
This should be interesting
Originally posted by NewQ
I new there was a reason to keep all those floppies :D I knew it, I knew it, .... I probably have a version of it. DOS to the rescue!! Now if XP will allow it to run in compatibility mode .... or I'll have to dust off the '98 machine. Hmmm, card reader in '98 ....
Anyway, I'll have to dust off the cases of them and reminisce ...
The old lharc versions won't work but you can google for lha255e.exe. If you have Cygwin installed you can use lha. All of this works in XP Pro native. Recently I upgraded to PowerDesk Pro 6 (a Windows Explorer and WinZIP substitute) and found that it now handles LZH, too.
No need for commanDOS.
Curious Cat
01-30-2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by 0gopogo
The old lharc versions won't work but you can google for lha255e.exe. If you have Cygwin installed you can use lha. All of this works in XP Pro native. Recently I upgraded to PowerDesk Pro 6 (a Windows Explorer and WinZIP substitute) and found that it now handles LZH, too.
No need for commanDOS.
I've used PowerDesk for a long time. It is so much more useful then stuff that comes with Windows. I wish they made a Palm version.
0gopogo
01-30-2005, 09:44 PM
True. I use it since version 4. When VCOM acquired the utilities division from Ontrack I was concerned that was the end of PowerDesk. It is a relief that VCOM finally released a V6, not because V5 needed improvements, but because it shows that PowerDesk is still and actively developed. VirtuaWin (a free and light-weight virtual desktop and window manager) is the other piece of software which significantly improves Windows usability.
As for file management a la PowerDesk on Palm OS, how about Resco Explorer? I'm thinking about buying it and would be interested in opinions.
NewQ
02-01-2005, 04:37 AM
I emailed the author of the test with this response:
___________________________
Dee See En,
Great review.
I wonder about the 16x, 32x, 45x, 60x speed cards though. If the controllers are the same, how can they sell them as faster? I'd be interested in what you find out when comparing the different speed cards. Our benchmark tests in a Palm based environment don't show them to be any faster than their "plain jane" siblings nor as fast as the UltraIIs. Can you do the same type of review taking this approach?
Thanks,
Rick
___________________________
Here is his response:
"The cards _are_ faster when advertised. For example, the Ultra IIs are considerably faster than their “plain jane” counterparts. This is why I chose to use the Ultra IIs in the comparison- the regular cheaper Sandisks wouldn’t have been much of a challenge, it’s in a completely different class.
The controllers are the same across different yields. For example, the same controller may be used in a 1GB as a 2GB. Likewise, they may also have a second controller (a second product line) that will handle the 1GB, so they may address the different markets (high speed and premium or simply low priced budget concerned users).
ATP’s 1GB and 2GB SD cards use the same controller- and thus run at approximately the same speed (slight variables incumbent to all manufacturing processes may account for non-significant differences).
As for testing in a Palm-based environment, there is considerably more overhead and system bottlenecks that prevent testing the cards to their full capabilities. This is why you’re not recognizing the differences, the hardware platform they’re being tested on does not utilize the cards to their max capabilities. For example, it would be like having a high school student compare a Ferrari to a Honda instead of having a professional driver make the same test drive. One has the capabilities to recognize the high end abilities of the machine while the other simply does not.
This is why the review was conducted over a high speed USB 2.0 connection as opposed to a Palm-based environment.
Hope that addressed your concerns let me know if you have any other questions.
Regards,
DCN"
Didn't answer that he'd tested the "x" type cards and maybe he's not a Palm fan?
NewQ
02-01-2005, 08:25 AM
I just received the Kingmax 66x Platinum 1GB card I ordered yesterday
_____________
VFSMark Results
;66x Kingmax Platinum
File Create: 82%
File Delete: 77%
File Write: 24%
File Read: 725%
File Seek: 561%
DB Export: 95%
DB Import: 573%
Record Access: 952%
Resource Access: 834%
VFSMark: 435
_____________
and tested it against a Lexar, "plain jane" 1GB card today.
_____________
VFSMark Results
;Lexar, plain jane 1GB
File Create: 299%
File Delete: 258%
File Write: 105%
File Read: 736%
File Seek: 655%
DB Export: 286%
DB Import: 713%
Record Access: 952%
Resource Access: 872%
VFSMark: 541
_____________
I copied the contents from the Lexar to my PC into a folder (approx 17min) and copied the data to the new card (approx 17min). I attribute the times to me having a USB 1.1 port, so I guess it choked it. I couldn't objectively test this.
Redraw speed:
The file map loaded was of the eastern time zone (670M). I tried to time the redraw that Ann likes to use as a guage. I zoomed out to 5mi scale and then dragged the map left and right and the redraw times were about the same - 2 to 3 secs for FL area.
I then went to the most dense POI area I could see - Washington DC area and at the 50mi scale clicked on Andrews AFB. I then set the scale to 5mi and counted. The Lexar took approx 9 secs and the new Kingmax took approx 9.5 secs.
I guess maybe there could be something to the last post I made quoting Dee See En and him talking about Palm not utilizing the cards to their max.
The search for speed sucks ...... There's a saying here in FL: A boat can only go as fast as it was designed to go, no matter how much motor you throw at it - doubling the motor size will not double the speed (although I've tried ;) ). The horse died !!!!
PDA Street
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.