8)
Notice the images on the product page read that the card can read 160MB/s and write up to 150MB/s (based on internal testing... real world perfomance may be lower upon host device)
http://www.amazon.de/SanDisk-Extreme-CompactFlash-Speicherkarte-160Mbps/dp/B00ECEVFFO/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1379017482&sr=8-15&keywords=sandisk+extreme+pro+compact+flash
Sounds promising.
In the fine print it says "65MB/s minimum sustained write speed", so it might not be as good as it appears to be for 1080p RAW. Having said that, my 32GB 90MB/s SanDisk CF card was just able to handle sustained 1080p RAW in the one and only test I tried with it (5Dmk3).
waiting for the Benchmark test 8)
I recently purchased 2 of this babies, hoping to get at least 30p 1080p, but I could not. :-\
When warmed up, I get no more than 90-93 mb/s. Why?
Here are my benchmark test:
Out of the box
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22569192/SD_benchmark/VRAM2.BMP)
Using Usb 3 Lexar card Reader (w/UDMA 7 firmware update):
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22569192/SD_benchmark/DiskSpeedTest.png)
And here's the strange result I got w/CrystalDisk Mark; :o sweet baby Jesus 137mb/s!!
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22569192/SD_benchmark/Capture.PNG)
I really don't understand what's going on here... I'm I doing something wrong? I would really like to stay with this card, they don't come cheap, getting that 137mb/s in ML would be a blessing and this cards are really reliable.
Can you do a benchmark in playback mode?
Quote from: juanky.alvarez on September 14, 2013, 04:08:28 PM
Using Usb 3 Lexar card Reader (w/UDMA 7 firmware update):
And here's the strange result I got w/CrystalDisk Mark; :o sweet baby Jesus 137mb/s!!
This is the first I see someone show these type of CF write speeds benchmarked via CrystalDiskMark. Are you getting this consistently? Curious to know the source of the bottleneck since the DMA controllers (EDMAC) are capable of 700 MB/s.
Quote from: a1ex on September 14, 2013, 04:12:11 PM
Can you do a benchmark in playback mode?
:o whoa, nice! still... 120mb/s, that card can do higher than that...
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22569192/SD_benchmark/VRAM1.BMP)
the thing that's bugging me is the fact that both ML benchmark and BM Disk Speed Test score virtually the same mb/s, but CrystalDisk Mark score way higher... why's that? ???
Quote from: MA Visuals on September 14, 2013, 05:39:27 PM
This is the first I see someone show these type of CF write speeds benchmarked via CrystalDiskMark. Are you getting this consistently? Curious to know the source of the bottleneck since the DMA controllers (EDMAC) are capable of 700 MB/s.
I've tested it two times and got the same score... this cards are advertised to run up to 150mb/s. i was expecting 145-148mb/s at least.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22569192/SD_benchmark/PhotoSep147111.jpg)
I have two 32gb 800x Lexar, and they benchmark really close of the advertised speed, in every app (ML, CDM and BM SpeedDisk).
sorry for the HUGE pictures.... ::)
You shouldn't automatically expect a "up to 150MB/s" card to write at that speed, none of the others do. "Performance may be lower depending on host device". It costs about the same as the other cards that do 93MB/s so I wouldn't be complaining.
Quote from: squig on September 16, 2013, 08:20:23 AM
You shouldn't automatically expect a "up to 150MB/s" card to write at that speed, none of the others do. "Performance may be lower depending on host device". It costs about the same as the other cards that do 93MB/s so I wouldn't be complaining.
you can't be more right. i know this cards are the best right now and that they're not optimized to work w/ML nor ML RAW recording; for now this performance is expected from the best CF cards out there on ML (which it's not even alpha). so, basically i post it to share results from this higher end CF cards, lots of people wondering and commenting just by reading product description and expecting (like me) some exclusive performance but that's not happening... yet hehe.
this cards are gonna be w/me for a long time, they're really tough and I shoot a lot in hot-humid weathers, I'm really lucky to be able to afford them and can't complain anymore ;D
it wouldn't hurt to have a c300 around right now.... ::)
cheers!
Iv read the CFast 2.0 team (SanDisk) is currently working along side with Canon... cant see it comin to mkii but can mkiii and up... may be 7D also.. hope it comes too mkii.... also hope if it does they dont patch ML, love ML wayyyy too much.
I thought CFast 2.0 was a completely different format which was not compatible with traditional CF controllers.
I wouldn't expect it to be supported by any of the existing cameras, maybe the 5DmkIV.
Quote from: Doyle4 on September 17, 2013, 06:09:56 AM
Iv read the CFast 2.0 team (SanDisk) is currently working along side with Canon... cant see it comin to mkii but can mkiii and up... may be 7D also.. hope it comes too mkii.... also hope if it does they dont patch ML, love ML wayyyy too much.
Seriously, no shipping camera has support for CFast. It is NOT backwards compatible. You cannot add it to an already existing camera, as the pin-out is totally different. Just look at the P-ATA and S-ATA connector.
They share the same form factor as normal CompactFlash but the similarities end there.
Can someone test it for 60fps 1920 in 2.35 mode. Can you have it continous with that card? Thx :)
Has anyone had the chance to test these new Sandisk cards thoroughly yet? (possibly with a 7D?)
Are they as fast as the Lexar 1000x? Because these Sandisk cards seem to be cheaper than the Lexar ones (at least where I live).
Thanks!
Any comparisons yet?
Any update on the SanDisk situation? I was thinking of purchasing one of these cards but if the speed is not as high as they claim, there is no point.
Thank you!