Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
Flash Media: 1GB CompactFlash Roundup
Flash Media: 1GB CompactFlash Roundup
Date: December 23rd, 2005
Topic: Storage
Manufacturer: Various
Author: Purav Sanghani
Buy the Transcend TS1GCF80 1GB Flash Card 80x
Blank
 Newegg $13.39
 Amazon $16.13
 TheNerds $26.99
 
 

Introduction

The demand for flash media has grown astronomically over the last few years as more digital devices such as personal digital music players, personal digital assistants, and digital cameras have gone main stream, and we're only going to see the demand for higher capacities and speeds to complement the quickly advancing technologies such as professional digital cameras and personal entertainment devices.

One of the most common types of flash media is the CompactFlash digital media, which is based on the same ATA standard as on hard disk drives. CompactFlash media was the first to provide high capacities and keeps its track record by providing up to 8GB of solid state memory (by the time that this article will be published). The transfer rates of CompactFlash media have also increased over the years from the 1x, 150KB/sec standard cards to the current maximum of 16MB/sec rates. Also, the CFA ( CompactFlash Association) released (just under a year ago) revision 3.0 of the CompactFlash Specification Revision to increase the interface transfer rates to 66MB/sec.

There is an abundance of brands, capacities, and speeds of CompactFlash media in the market today, which range in price between $15-$800 (256MB-8GB), but our focus for this roundup will be currently the most widely used capacity of 1GB. We have put together a list of brands both well known in the memory and flash media industry as well as some that many of us are seeing for the first time. Take a look at our competitors below.


Click to enlarge.

Model Part No. Price
EDGE Standard PE188993 $59.77
Kingston Standard CF/1024 $49.99
Lexar Professional (80x) - $87.59
PNY Optima (80x) - $85.72
PQI Standard AC16-1030 $60.81
RiData Pro 52x - ~$56
Rosewill - RCF1024 $51.99
SanDisk Ultra II SDCFH-1024 $73.95
Transcend 80x TS1GCF80 $65.95
Viking Standard CF1GB $53.99

All of these cards are standard CompactFlash Type I media cards with varying speeds with exception of the Lexar Professional series media, which features its "Write Acceleration Technology", said to improve image write speeds by up to 23% with compatible cameras. This is done with the aid of special firmware on the media as well as the cameras themselves, which allow them to work together to improve the write algorithms. However, we have also seen an improvement in write speeds in our benchmarks as well, but we'll let you see for yourself.

Special thanks to NewEgg for providing us with the CompactFlash cards for this review.

The Test   Next Page

 
  Index

Tools Share
Find lowest prices Find the lowest prices
Digg   del.icio.us   E-mail  
Print This Article Print this article  

24 Comments - Last by mindless1, 1426 days ago
Username:
Password:
Thx 'egg by mindless1, 1428 days ago
"Special thanks to NewEgg for providing us with the CompactFlash cards for this review."

Yes, thank you Newegg. I love seeing reviews where Newegg donated parts, since so many of us shop there it seems a win-win for everyone.

Reply
Well... by Lifted, 1428 days ago
So where are the RAID benchmarks?

Reply
The tests should've been done differently by BikeDude, 1428 days ago
First of all... Given any sub-2GB storage device for a camera, the choice is easy: FAT16 filesystem with the largest possible cluster size.

Because most of the time, you'll be storing big picture files, the big cluster size won't waste nearly as much space as a big allocation table! (do the math, if you have 512 Byte clusters, you'll end up with a pretty big allocation table)

Secondly, write performance will vary depending on camera brand and model. http://robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007 provides a more relevant yardstick. Keep in mind: You'll notice any delay much more while shooting pictures -- not while you transfer to your PC afterwards!

Thirdly, any file benchmark with random write behaviour is flawed in this test. When using a camera, all files will be stored sequentially. There's very little seeking taking place... Thus there's no need for a separate HDTach test. The file copy to media should suffice plenty. Only one of the tests will provide a relevant picture. (hard to tell if they provided the same numbers...? Different graph styles have been used!)

Finally, why leave the Sandisk Extreme III cards outside this test? They are the absolute best... (and have been for over a year!)

--
Rune

Reply
RE: The tests should've been done differently by heulenwolf, 1428 days ago
At my workplace, we use CF cards for all sorts of things that don't involve cameras. I, for one, am happy to see random access tests. I agree that they should be in addition to sequential tests to give camera users some info.

I agree that the graph types need some work. Specifically, the spline (or whatever interpolation function it is) used on page three, "Real World File Copy Test to Media," connects dots between different cards. This interpolation tells us nothing and only confuses the situation by connecting what should be disassociated information. For example, there's no information provided by looking at what the spline says occurs "half way" between an Edge and a Kingston card. If Purav were to switch the graphing inputs around such that the X-axis is file size and make separate lines for each card, then, assuming he'd picked an appropriate interpolation function for the "Real World" transfer times, we might be able to tell something about transfer times for file sizes in between the three tested. If not, then drop the spline and just plot the dots.

Reply
RE: The tests should've been done differently by Cygni, 1428 days ago
A sequential test would be nice, but i doubt it would change the results a whole lot. It would be good for us CF camera users, though. But AT is a computer site... not a Camera site. They tested using CF's using computer standards and techniques, for computer storage more or less.

Also, AT only tests what they get sent. If Newegg didnt send them a Sandisk Ex III, they dont get to test one. They aint rollin in the dough.

I really liked the idea of CF roundup. Its something ive never seen AT do, and with motherboards so close in performance, new CPU's performance predictable, and video cards all based on reference designs, its good for AT to branch out into some new stuff for us to read.

Reply
RE: The tests should've been done differently by PuravSanghani, 1428 days ago
Well actually, we don't ONLY test what NewEgg or any other manufacturers/retailers send us. We specifically asked for these models for our first 1GB CompactFlash roundup...yes, first! So there is more to come in the flash media area.

As for how we benchmark and why we do it the way we do on computers instead of using digital cameras, many who use flash media for more than just digital camera storage, like MP3 players and PDAs, use USB based card readers interfaced with their PCs. We benchmark this way to compare the performance of each card relative to the other products in the article.

As for all new areas we journey into we greatly appreciate any constructive criticism to improve our processes.

Thank you all and have a safe and happy holiday.

Purav

Reply
RE: The tests should've been done differently by Anton74, 1428 days ago
FYI, I just noticed that the RiDATA CF cards available on newegg are all 80x - the 1GB model is $60 plus S&H.

The tested RiDATA Pro-52x looked to me like the most attractive blend between performance and expected life expectancy. I'm guessing the 80x is faster and shorter lived. (But how short is short, really?)

Reply
RE: The tests should've been done differently by Anton74, 1427 days ago
quote:

expected life expectancy

It should be noted, of course, that I am a representative of the Department of Redundancy Department. ;-)

Reply
RE: The tests should've been done differently by BikeDude, 1426 days ago
"use USB based card readers interfaced with their PCs."

I hope you realise that performance varies greatly between most card readers. (e.g. few of them supports the latest PIO modes added to the CF specs a year ago)

I would've started by benchmarking the readers. My top candidates are Lexar's latest Firewire based reader, SanDisk latest USB2 reader, as well as Delkin's CardBus based reader.

I doubt a reader that can read multiple card formats performs well when compared with the ones I mentioned.

(Slightly related pet peeve: Laptop tests that give a laptop "+" for having a CF reader, but doesn't bother testing its speed -- My notebook's built-in reader is useless)

--
Rune

Reply
RE: The tests should've been done differently by quanta, 1428 days ago
Speaking of absolute best, Sandisk's record was just broken by Twinmos (140x) and ATP ProMax (150x). For that matter, CompactFlash record is already broken by MMC Plus cards, which goes up to 200x, with the announced 266x from Pretec.

Reply
Comments Page 1 of 3

DOWNLOAD vWire Today - FREE TRIAL
Take Control of Your Virtual Infrastructure. Manage VI Data & Prevent Problems.
Instantly Recover Active Directory
Instantly recover Active Directory without rebooting, panic or stress. Try FREE!
Report Unlicensed Business Software Use
Earn Up to $1 Million by Reporting Unlicensed Software Use. Fill Out Our Form!
Special Offer from The Economist
Get 12 issues of The Economist for $12. US subscribers only.
Supermicro Barebone Servers
We Carry Everything Supermicro. Low Price, Top Service, FREE Shipping, and more.




Latest news by
DailyTech

 November 20, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 November 19, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank


Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
more Storage Discussions



pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2009 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information