Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1.    #1  
    My new SD card “Sandisk Ultra II +”is much slower than my old “Sandisk Ultra II” The “+” version is the one that you can bend and it reveals an USB plug so it can be plugged directly into an USB port.

    I don’t experience the difference when listening to MP3 files but I do when copying files to my PC. This is particularly annoying as I bought the card so I could transfer files to and from my PC faster.

    I thought that this was maybe caused by a difference in the USB controller between the miniature built into the SD-card and the hefty 6-1 adapter I had used to connect my old SD-card to a USB port. However I now notice that also Treo-to-SDcard transfers are much slower! I make daily backups on my Treo using BackupMan and this operation would take around 1 minute (1:08) on my old 1 Gb “Sandisk Ultra II” whereas the same operation (same data) on the new 1 Gb “Sandisk Ultra II +” takes 4 times as long (3:57). In both instances the BackupMan software was running from the Treo and not from the SDcard.

    Has anybody else experience the same thing? Is there a way to make the II+ faster? Does it need to be formatted in a specific way? Have I just got a lemon?
  2. #2  
    I was about to ask the same question.

    I don't have any "vanilla" Sandisk ultra II, but I have a 512 MB Twinmos (66x).

    The second one is about 4 X quicker than the my new 1GB Sandisk ultra II Plus when in writing. The read speed is almost the same (the Sandisk is slightly slower).

    This is very disappointing.
    Last edited by The Solutor; 03/07/2006 at 08:27 PM.
    -------------------------------------------------

    Ericsson/Sonyericsson SH 668 > SH868 > SH888 > R320 >T39m > T65 >T68mc > R380 > P800 > Z600 > Z1010 > K608i
    Siemens ME45 > S55 > SL55
    Motorola 6200 > C333 > C350 > V547 > E1000 > A1000
    Nokia 7110 > 6230 > 6630 > 6230i> E60 > N80
    Panasonic G500 > GD90 > VS3
    Philips Fisio 820 > 825
    Palm Treo 650 > Treo 750V
    Samsung ZV40 > SGH-Z560
    NEC 338 > 616
  3. hrlaser's Avatar
    Posts
    440 Posts
    Global Posts
    442 Global Posts
    #3  
    I reviewed the SanDisk Ultra II Plus USB for TC a few weeks ago (it's still on the front page of the site) and am not experiencing any kind of slowless at all, whether copying files onto it from my laptop, or from it back to the laptop or using it with BackupBuddyVFS in my Treo 650 to make backups on an almost daily basis. I just shoved the card into my SprintPCS Treo 650 and punched BackupBuddy VFS' backup button. The Treo has a little under six meg free on it. The backup took 28 seconds to backup roughly 20mb of stuff stored internally. That's pretty damn fast if you ask me.

    For my next experiment, I plugged the card into a USB 2.0 port on a four port BusLink PCMCIA card on my laptop. This is a 512mb SanDisk Ultra II Plus USB card and it has 414mb of stuff on it. A bunch of mp3s, Audible.com books, programs, BackupBuddyVFS backups, and so on. Plugged into the same BusLink USB 2.0 card (it's a four port card) is a 50gb LaCie Porsche Design hard drive. I created a folder on that hard drivecalled "sandisk", and copied everything from the SanDisk card to that folder, all 414mb of it. The copying took 90 seconds. That's 90 seconds to copy 414mb from the card to a hard disk, both plugged into the same USB 2.0 card adapter.

    Sometimes, when I've plugged the SanDisk card into the Buslink card to copy files to it to use in the Treo (.prc files, mp3s, whatever) they copy so fast I can't even tell anything happened. I have to look at the card in Winblows explorer to see that the new files are actually on it.

    So, for whatever it's worth, in my opinion, this card is extremely fast. Both when copying stuff off it, and putting stuff on it.

    I don't have a card reader to test its speed against other non-folding SD cards I have.

    I'll ask a stupid but obvious question, since neither of you mentioned it. You ARE putting the SanDisk Ultra II Plus USB card into a USB 2.0 port, aren't you? Not a USB 1.1 port? Because USB 2.0 is roughly forty times as fast as USB 1.1.

    So there are my results. This is on a Compaq Presario laptop with a 2.1ghz AMD XPM, 512mb of RAM, about a year old.

    Harv
    Do NOT send email to harv at treocentral dot com - it will never reach me.. forwarding from that address to my real address was hijacked in early 2008, and I can't fix it.. send me a private message instead or email me directly at my RR address..
  4. #4  
    I reviewed the SanDisk Ultra II Plus USB for TC a few weeks ago
    I read it, I bought the card because I read it...

    Here are the VFS mark results on my cards

    ------------Twinmos 512 MB(66x)------Sandisk UltraII + 1 GB

    File create: -----286 %-----------------67%

    File Delete:------168%------------------32%

    File Write:--------65%------------------41%

    File read:--------692%-----------------545%

    File Seeek:------2950%----------------2360%

    DB Export:-------151%-------------------27%

    DB import:--------545%-----------------368%

    Record access----1131%----------------928%

    Resource Access:-1097%----------------783%

    VFS Mark :--------787-------------------572


    The results are obtained on the treo with the new fat32 driver, both the cards are Fat16 formatted.

    Can you post yours results
    Last edited by The Solutor; 03/07/2006 at 08:50 PM.
    -------------------------------------------------

    Ericsson/Sonyericsson SH 668 > SH868 > SH888 > R320 >T39m > T65 >T68mc > R380 > P800 > Z600 > Z1010 > K608i
    Siemens ME45 > S55 > SL55
    Motorola 6200 > C333 > C350 > V547 > E1000 > A1000
    Nokia 7110 > 6230 > 6630 > 6230i> E60 > N80
    Panasonic G500 > GD90 > VS3
    Philips Fisio 820 > 825
    Palm Treo 650 > Treo 750V
    Samsung ZV40 > SGH-Z560
    NEC 338 > 616
  5.    #5  
    Thanks The Solutor, I didn't know VFSMark, but this is a good way to objectively test the SDcard’s performance. I got pretty much the same results as you for my UltraII+.

    For those of you that don't know VFSMark, it is a freeware utility that benchmarks SDcards. The basic score is 100% and cards can thus score better (above 100%) or worse (less then 100%). I got a copy from palmgear.com.

    I have compared the results of my UltraII+ and the UltraII and have provided them here below but without VFSMarks percent symbol. First number is the UltraII+ results followed by the UltraII in parenthesis. Thereafter there is a percentage result (how the UltraII+ performed compared to the UltraII). Overall the UltraII+ is slower than the non+ card, and for some tasks it is SUBSTANTIALLY slower:

    File Create: 66 (486) = -636% thus normal UltraII 7 times faster!
    File Delete: 31 (180) = -481% thus normal UltraII 6 times faster!

    File Write: 44 (46) = -5%
    File Read: 602 (644) = -7%
    File Seek: 491 (694) = -41%
    DB Export: 35 (166) = -374% thus normal UltraII 5 times faster!
    DB Import: 313 (385) = 23%
    Record Access: 548 (683) = -25%
    Resource Access: 498 (640) = -29%

    VFSMark: 292 (436) = normal UltraII about 50% faster overall.

    Furthermore this confirms that the performance hit is caused not by an average slower performance, but by having some tasks being excruciatingly slow! Copying text files to my card is too slow and does reduce the convenience of not needing a built in SDcard reader or adapter.


    HRLASER: Can you post the results for your UltraII+. It would be interesting to see if there are extensive variations for the same product. (Also it would be interesting to see if Sandisk gave the TreoCentral tester one of their "good" cards )
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by The Solutor
    The results are obtained on the treo with the new fat32 driver, both the cards are Fat16 formatted.
    Hi The Solutor, what is the new fat32 driver for the Treo?
  7. #7  
    maybe the 1gb ones are slow
  8. #8  
    Hi The Solutor, what is the new fat32 driver for the Treo?
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...d.php?t=106598
    -------------------------------------------------

    Ericsson/Sonyericsson SH 668 > SH868 > SH888 > R320 >T39m > T65 >T68mc > R380 > P800 > Z600 > Z1010 > K608i
    Siemens ME45 > S55 > SL55
    Motorola 6200 > C333 > C350 > V547 > E1000 > A1000
    Nokia 7110 > 6230 > 6630 > 6230i> E60 > N80
    Panasonic G500 > GD90 > VS3
    Philips Fisio 820 > 825
    Palm Treo 650 > Treo 750V
    Samsung ZV40 > SGH-Z560
    NEC 338 > 616
  9.    #9  
    OK, so the fat32 driver is mostly a (huge) improvement in File Seek, and also in record and resource access. Pretty impressive though.
  10. #10  
    Any speed comparisons in the 700w? Are there any similar benchmark programs for it too?
  11. #11  
    Well I just spoke w/SanDisk's tech support and referenced this thread. At this time they didn't have a solution and have elevated the issue.

    To add another data set for comparison here are my VFSMark Results for a 512MB Lexar Platinum 40x SD card and a 1GB SanDisk Ultra II PLUS. I have a Verizon Treo 650 with 1.04a ROM.

    Lexar in blue and SanDisk in red.

    File Create: 1395% / 464%
    File Delete: 971% / 259%
    File Write: 68% / 12%
    File Read: 703% / 618%
    File Seek: 786% / 655%
    DB Export: 249% / 35%
    DB Import: 408% / 343%
    Record Access: 861% / 548%
    Resource Access: 817% / 512%

    VFSMark: 695 / 382

    Interestingly I used Simpli Software HDTach to test the SD cards on my computer's SD card slot (and USB port).

    The Lexar got ~7.5MB/sec while the SanDisk got ~9.5MB/sec when it was used as an SD card OR when used as a USB device.

    I also tested the same two cards on another Verizon Treo 650 and observed similar results.
  12. hrlaser's Avatar
    Posts
    440 Posts
    Global Posts
    442 Global Posts
    #12  
    "The Lexar got ~7.5MB/sec while the SanDisk got ~9.5MB/sec when it was used as an SD card OR when used as a USB device."

    So what are you saying? Is the SanDisk card faster or slower? That last pair of figures you posted seem to say the SanDisk card is ~2mb/sec faster than the Lexar card.

    For those of us out here (both of us? (just me?)).. in your other benchmark tests, all those percentage results.. which numbers are better and which numbers are worse?

    Harv
    Do NOT send email to harv at treocentral dot com - it will never reach me.. forwarding from that address to my real address was hijacked in early 2008, and I can't fix it.. send me a private message instead or email me directly at my RR address..
  13.    #13  
    As the VFSMark test shows, the PLUS card is great at some tasks and really bad at other tasks. On the Treo this translates to the following: it is good at playing back video files, but slow at getting the video on the card. It is very slow at backing up and synchronizing directories with a PC (where file creating and deletion is involved).

    Compaired to similar cards the PLUS card is 5 to 7 times slower at the tasks I highlighted in red in my post #5 in this thread, i.e. “File Create”, “File Delete”, and “DB Export”.

    The HDTach test is a less complete test than VFSMark as it only looks a four different drive tasks: “Burst Test”, “CPU charge test”, “Random Access Test”, and “Sequential Read Test” which are the typical tasks of a harddisk in a PC server. It basically tests how good the drive is at serving up files for example to use it as a drive in a server. But this is not how a Treo user will use PLUS flash drive.
  14.    #14  
    Harv, In VFSMark the higher the number the better, the same in HDTach.
  15. #15  
    Sorry to not clarify in my previous post but the first tests were done on the Treo (where the lexar was faster) and the 2nd tests were done on the computer (where the sandisk was faster).

    I find it odd that the Sandisk was significantly slower on the Treo than on the computer.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrlaser
    "The Lexar got ~7.5MB/sec while the SanDisk got ~9.5MB/sec when it was used as an SD card OR when used as a USB device."

    So what are you saying? Is the SanDisk card faster or slower? That last pair of figures you posted seem to say the SanDisk card is ~2mb/sec faster than the Lexar card.

    For those of us out here (both of us? (just me?)).. in your other benchmark tests, all those percentage results.. which numbers are better and which numbers are worse?

    Harv
  16. hrlaser's Avatar
    Posts
    440 Posts
    Global Posts
    442 Global Posts
    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by jocamero
    Sorry to not clarify in my previous post but the first tests were done on the Treo (where the lexar was faster) and the 2nd tests were done on the computer (where the sandisk was faster).

    I find it odd that the Sandisk was significantly slower on the Treo than on the computer.
    Alright, benchmarks are all well and good and people have been arguing benchmark results like forever. 20 years ago I had friends who stuck a 68010 in their Amiga 1000 replacing the 68000 to get a 5% speed increase. {{twirling finger in the air}}..

    From your results, the folding card is obviously faster than the standard card in a computer. But exactly how much slower (in a Treo) in REAL TIME is the SanDisk folding card than the non-folding card? Is it so much slower that you get up, go to the kitchen, fry a couple eggs and a slab of ham, mix up some pancake batter, make a short stack, come back to the Treo, sit down, eat breakfast, read the paper, burp pleasantly, walk the dog, and it's still copying while the other card copies files so fast if you blink you miss it? Give me an interpretation of those benchmark numbers in minutes or seconds or fractions of seconds, instead of percentages, and if it's like a fraction of a second difference, then my reaction to that is who cares?

    In other words, the folding card has an advantage over a standard card that, in my opinion, its convenience factor (no card reader needed to plug it into any computer) outweighs any speed difference, if that speed difference is mere fractions of or even a couple of seconds.

    And no, I don't own any stock in SanDisk. I wish I did.

    Harv
    Do NOT send email to harv at treocentral dot com - it will never reach me.. forwarding from that address to my real address was hijacked in early 2008, and I can't fix it.. send me a private message instead or email me directly at my RR address..
  17. #17  
    Well using BackupMan, backups and restores were significantly longer. Normally it was enough to hold my attention and wait. (maybe 30 seconds before, now longer than a minute) Now I get up and do something.

    Waiting for Documents To Go to sync data to the card: again, I used to sit and wait and now I won't. (30-60 seconds longer than before maybe???)

    Hence this is why I used benchmarks because I thought it was odd that these activities were seeming to take so much longer with my new card and why I finally returned the SanDisk card.
  18. #18  
    using Sprite Backup on my 700 to a 1GB Plus card, I get a report of ~275KBps for both backup and restore with compression for an 11MB backup file.
  19. hrlaser's Avatar
    Posts
    440 Posts
    Global Posts
    442 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by blulegend
    using Sprite Backup on my 700 to a 1GB Plus card, I get a report of ~275KBps for both backup and restore with compression for an 11MB backup file.
    I just did a full backup of my 650 using Blue Nomad's BackupBuddy VFS onto my SanDisk Ultra II Plus USB card. My 650 has five meg free on it. The biggest single file in it is a Mapopolis map of So. Calif. which is about four meg. Using the reliable "one elphant two elephant" time counting method, the backup took a mind-bending, glacially slow sixteen seconds, during which I watched Gone With The Wind, shot 18 holes, took a nap, and wrote a Doctoral thesis. Yeah, really slow card.

    Harv
    Do NOT send email to harv at treocentral dot com - it will never reach me.. forwarding from that address to my real address was hijacked in early 2008, and I can't fix it.. send me a private message instead or email me directly at my RR address..
  20.    #20  
    Harv, your post is very misleading. You did not backup 17 mb (22 mb onboard memory of the Treo 650 with 5mb free) in 16 seconds as you lead the reader to believe.

    BackupBuddy only makes INCREMENTAL backups, so it only backs up the files changed since last backup – which may be no files at all.

    To follow your example I just installed BackupBuddy on my Treo 650 and still have about 6.5 mb free. Making a first full backup with this program took 4 minutes and 43 seconds. It is true that the subsequent backup executed immediately afterwards only took 18 seconds but BackupBuddy only used this time to verify that no files had changed.

    Because of the incremental backup approach, BackupBuddy can only keep one backup set. BackupMan on the other hand makes full backups every time so you can keep several different backup sets. But these are just architectural differences in backup programs - the subject of this thread is that it takes 4 minutes to backup a Treo with the PLUS card whereas it only takes 1 minute with just about any other card on the market today.

    You may poke fun at benchmark tests but I easily noticed this difference by simply using the card. The benchmarks have only been used to confirm this.

    Yes the PLUS card has its practical advantages with the built-in USB connector, but it also has substantial performance issues that it is only fair the future buyer should be made aware of.
    Last edited by u_m_rasmussen; 04/05/2006 at 05:39 PM.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions