Check-out the read/write speed on this card

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Mar 1, 2014.

  1. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    I reckon nospam would win a pissing conte3st he certainly trains enough.

    Anyway my last fast card is now used as a 16GB boot up disc for my raspberry pi .
     
    Whisky-dave, Mar 4, 2014
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Guest Guest

    i said that filling it up slows it down.

    the type of file doesn't matter. it can be jpeg, png, nef, text, mp3 or
    something else. what matters is how full the volume is and how many
    files per folder.

    note that there are over 1400 jpegs in figure 3. that's a shitload for
    one folder on fat.
     
    Guest, Mar 4, 2014
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Guest Guest

    Depends who you talk to, I've tested it and found it significant to me.
    Significant enough for video cameras to prefer firewire over USB.[/QUOTE]

    video is different because it can drop frames. a file copy doesn't care.
    others have, and benchmarks show usb versus firewire to not be
    significantly different.

    here's some numbers, done ten years ago (i.e., much slower computer):
    <http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/open-dv-discussion/24612-test-usb2-vs-firew
    ire-performance-external-harddisk.html>

    the best case for usb was 1% cpu load (i.e., not significant) and the
    differences on average, while better for firewire, are not as big as
    some people think. also note that firewire can be as high as 23% cpu
    load, which is significant.

    with a modern computer, the cpu load will be lower than those numbers
    because the processor is substantially faster.

    here are more benchmarks:
    <http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/usb-firewire-esata,2534-5.html>

    usb read was 32.4 versus 35 for firewire, a difference of about 10%,
    and write was 30.8 versus 30.6, which is basically the same.

    in the real world, it doesn't matter and you are likely to not even
    notice it.

    on the other hand, if all you do is benchmark all day, then it might.
    it's not an issue, which is what matters.

    the amount of processor cycles needed for usb is not going to be
    noticed by a 2 ghz multicore processor.
    fat is irrelevant to usb/fw speeds.
    usb 3 is more than just a faster version of usb 2. it's a redesign of
    the protocol.
    it is.
    usb does not use 'far more processing cycles'.

    it uses a little bit more, which is not significant, especially when
    you have 2 ghz multicore processors.
    cpu priority.
    speeds are always quoted as the fastest possible. no different than
    anything else.
     
    Guest, Mar 4, 2014
    #23
  4. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Why then are the cards faster with RAW data?
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 4, 2014
    #24
  5. RichA

    Guest Guest

    they're not. look at the graphs.

    it slows down as the number of files increases, and since jpeg files
    are smaller, you can have *more* files than with raw.

    *that* is why there's a difference, not because of the format.

    also, that camera dumps everything into one folder. many cameras limit
    it to 100 photos per folder, which pretty much eliminates the problem
    since you'll never have enough files per folder to make a difference.
     
    Guest, Mar 4, 2014
    #25
  6. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    So without knowing the file size(s) we can't really begin to even
    estimate the number of files each type represent.
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 4, 2014
    #26
  7. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    It just takes longer that's the point, when you're filming video you don;t want dropped frames.

    that's around the time I did mine, but I never used PCI card which adds a delay.
    My FW waqs straight from the motherboard which makes a significant differnce.

    "As some of you might know I never trusted my firewire cards to
    give me the maximum claimed bandwidth of 400 mbit/s (or mbps)."


    Go back look again !

    " System 1 [homebuilt tower] - USB2: 31.4 MB/s (16% cpu usage)
    System 1 [homebuilt tower] - firewire: 33.7 MB/s (4% cpu usage)
    System 2 [DELL laptop] - firewire: 32.6 MB/s (6% cpu usage)
    "

    "Firewire seems to be the winner. It has higher throughput
    on every test versus USB2 (on my test system!) and also less
    CPU usage!"

    In case you don't know the reason the Dell laptop is slower is because the HD speed is lower probbaly 5400 rather than 7200.

    I also did a few test using 10,000 RPM SCSI now that was faster with FW but not much differnce over USB 2.

    Yes it will also the disc cache in most modern HDs are larger.
    I've just ordered a new HD with 64Mb cache.
    The other dirrnece is that now most computers are 64 bit rather than 32 bit.


    1 & 2 TB drives didn't exist when I did my tests and as I said the cache is larger now which makes a differnce.

    Depending on the use, but SD cards are still slower than HD or SSDs.
    Or you have a reason to want to konw the differencies.

    That's not what I've found.
    If I want to use a SD card for trtansfering files I find it quicker far quicker to reformat to a MAC OS rather than FAT. I can also copy files larger than 4GB too.

    you mean full duplex rathe than half ?

    4X the amount as seen in the test above, I'd say 4X is far more.

    So little meaning then unless you test them on yuor own systems.
    Remmebr USB speeds are the maxium burst rate speeds firewire is the constant speed that can be manatined thatr's why video camera used them in the past rather than USB.
     
    Whisky-dave, Mar 6, 2014
    #27
  8. RichA

    Guest Guest

    It just takes longer that's the point, when you're filming video you don;t
    want dropped frames.[/QUOTE]

    that's why firewire is preferred for video.
    insignificant. like seriously insignificant.

    if you think pci imparts a delay on a hard drive which is orders of
    magnitude slower, then you're very confused.
    no it doesn't. not in the least.
    then you must have defective firewire cards.
    and then there's this, for average access:
    € System 1 [homebuilt tower] - USB2: 20.5 ms (3% cpu usage)
    € System 1 [homebuilt tower] - firewire: 20.5 ms (2% cpu usage)
    € System 2 [DELL laptop] - firewire: 19.8 ms (2% cpu usage)
    the maximum of both are not significantly different.

    drivers can also play a role. the usb drivers in powerpc macs sucked.
    the ones in intel macs are much, much better.
    in other words, usb speeds aren't the sole factor.
    bigger cache means usb/fw isn't as much of an factor.
    you aren't actually measuring usb and firewire speeds with an sd card,
    are you?
    what matters are real world speeds, not the number on a test chart.

    that's because fat is not a particularly good file system.

    and this is about usb/fw not fat/hfs/ntfs/etc.
     
    Guest, Mar 7, 2014
    #28
  9. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    It is significant. Or are you saying there's no differnce between PCI & PCIExpress and all cards perform equally ?


    A HD will use it's cache.
    you are wrong, and it also dependsd on the chipset, this is especailly important when using audio over firewire.

    Having problems reading, I've never had a FW car mine being MAc have it built in.
    The commet of yuo must have defective cards you shoud direct to the original poster who was doing the testing do you not understand that ?

    But no explantation but again USB uses 30%+ more CPU usage.
    Yopu see the difernce between 3% & 2% might appear to be 1% but it's really more like 30% slower.

    Significant enough for industry to go to firewire over USB2.
    What of standard PC tower USBs ?

    Exactly and speeds are quoted as maxium peek transfer rates for USB
    which is probbly why the OP didn't get the 400MB he was expecting.


    Depending on the amount yes.

    You've noticed that now have you as the original point/post was about a 3X faster card, my point was how and what was tested.
    I've found that when Mac formated the SD cards I have appear faster when coping to and from HD than they do when used with a camera format FAT32.

    Yopu8 might have also noticed that the card temerature range only goes downto -13C and I do remmebr at least one photographer who likes standing out in -30C or bellow not sure how it would affect his picture taking should hechoose3 this 3X faster card.

    Exactly.
    And for me I have multiple uses for my cards my fastest is curerntly in my raspberry pi my default camera 8GB is presently in a USB stick mode connected to a friends TV so they can see what I recorded on wednesday full quality without the ads and overheads youtube might have.

    Yes so the format of a card makes a differnce, why camera manufacures stilluse FAT32 I'm not sure. Its seems pretty pathetic that on most camera youcan;t go beyond 4GD in file size.
    Must have been a real pain filming Gravity with such limitations.

    This was originaly about a new faster SD card, check the original post fromRichA

    http://www.sandisk.com/products/memory-cards/sd/extremepro-sdxc-sdhc-uhs-ii/?capacity=32GB

    Wow! A near three-fold speed jump from the regular Extreme Pro's.
     
    Whisky-dave, Mar 7, 2014
    #29
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.