Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42
  1.    #1  
    Get CardSpeed here

    Make sure you include Manufacturer, Model, Size, and how it was formatted. (In Particular you should try and post the cluster size, and whether it is FAT16 or FAT32).

    I will keep this post updated with a list of Cards that have been tested and posted to this thread.

    With these results it should help people who are thinking of buying a card for the 700p.

    (Please note only tests run on a 700p should be posted to this thread.)

    [PLACEHOLDER PERFORMANCE TABLE]
    Code:
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        | Brand     | Series   | Capacity | FAT Type | Cluster Size | Wrt32bit | Wrt8KB | Read8KB |
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        | PNY       | Standard |   2GB    |  FAT32   |     4K       |   535    | 193172 | 2931874 |
        | Transcend | 150x     |   4GB    |  FAT32   |    32K       |    24    |  43258 | 3276800 |
        | A-Data    | 150x     |   4GB    |  FAT32   |     4K       |   331    |  46561 | 3276800 |
        | Transcend | 150x     |   4GB    |  FAT32   |    32K       |    24    |  43258 | 3276800 |
        | SanDisk   | Standard |   2GB    |  FAT16   |    32K       |    31    | 252061 | 3276800 |
        | SanDisk   | Ultra II |   2GB    |  FAT32   |    32K       |   283    | 194180 | 2912711 |
        | SanDisk   | UII/USB  |   1GB    |  FAT16   |    ??K       |    93    |  39420 |  262440 |
        | Lexar     | Standard | 512MB    |  FAT16   |     8K       |    75    | 101213 | 3276800 |
        | Palm      | Standard |   1GB    |  FAT16   |    16K       |    51    |  79019 | 1456355 |
        | Transcend | Class 6  |   8GB    |  FAT32   |  default     |   163    | 234057 | 3276800 |
    <TABLE> <TR><TD></TD><td>secs</td><TD>Wrt32bit</td><td>Wrt8KB</td><td>Read8KB</td></tr> <tr><td>4K</td>7.8<td>331</td><td>46561</td><td>3276800</td></tr> <tr><td>32K-empty</td>2.17<td>388</td><td>236165</td><td>3276800</td></tr> <tr><td>32K-340MB</td>2.83<td>272</td><td>173605</td><td>3276800</td></tr> <tr><td>32K-1.3GB</td>2.52<td>367</td><td>184608</td><td>3276800</td></tr> </table>

    For some reason I can't get HTML tables working... So until I do, I will maintain the "text" table.

    See this thread for notes on formatting with different cluster sizes: http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...9&page=5&pp=20

    Note: It seems that max throughput of the Treo 700p card reader is about 3MB/sec. I am getting the feeling Wrt32bit is the most important number for perceived write speed on the Treo.
    Last edited by Brandorr; 07/26/2007 at 06:09 PM.
  2.    #2  
    4GB Transcend x150 Fat32 (4KB clusters)
    ----------------------------------------
    Wrt32bit: 11bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 12977 bytes/sec
    Read8KB:3276800 bytes/sec

    4GB Transcend x150 Fat32 (32K clusters)
    ----------------------------------------
    Wrt32bit: 24 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 43258 bytes/sec
    Read8KB:3276800 bytes/sec

    --

    Sandisk UltraII 2GB FAT16 (4KB clusters)
    ---------------------------------------
    Wrt32bit: 295 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 32768 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 3276800 bytes/sec

    Sandisk UltraII 2GB FAT16 (32K clusters)
    ---------------------------------------
    Wrt32bit: 289 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 195629 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 3276800 bytes/sec

    Sandisk UltraII 2GB FAT32 (32K clusters)
    ---------------------------------------
    Wrt32bit: 283 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 194180 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 2912711 bytes/sec

    Sandisk UltraII 2GB FAT32 (64K clusters)
    ---------------------------------------
    Wrt32bit: 302 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 203212 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 3276800 bytes/sec

    --

    Palm 1GB FAT16 (16K clusters)
    ----------------------------
    Wrt32bit: 51 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 79019 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 1456355 bytes/sec

    --

    Lexar Media 512MB FAT16 (8K clusters)
    --------------------------------------
    Wrt32bit: 75 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 101213 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 3276800 bytes/sec

    --

    Sandisk 2GB FAT16 (32K clusters)
    --------------------------------------
    Wrt32bit: 31 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 252061 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 3276800 bytes/sec
    Last edited by Brandorr; 07/09/2006 at 01:12 PM.
  3. ERicJ's Avatar
    Posts
    758 Posts
    Global Posts
    779 Global Posts
    #3  
    First and formost I believe you need to run CardSpeed multiple times to get an average of your results. I see rather widely varying results from run to run on the same card within seconds of each other.

    Below are the results from my PNY 2GB.
    Code:
    Wrt32bit Wrt8KB Read8KB <-- all in bytes/sec
         348 168041 2912711 * data sorted by Wrt8KB results.
         348 168041 2912711
         348 169125 2912711
         591 170223 2912711
         566 191345 2912711
         566 191345 2912711
         591 191345 2912711
         591 191345 2912711
         591 191345 2912711
         348 192752 2912711
         591 192752 2912711
         591 192752 2912711
         591 192752 2912711
         591 192752 3276800
         566 214872 2912711
         591 214872 2912711
         566 214872 2912711
         591 214872 2912711
         591 214872 2912711
    AVERAGE:
         535 193172 2931874
    http://tinyurl.com/zozch

    My 2GB is definitely FAT32. But I get differing results on whether it has 4K or 32K clusters depending on which utility I use.

    Code:
    c:\WINDOWS\system32>chkdsk.exe e:
    The type of the file system is FAT32.
    Volume ERICCARD08 created 6/21/2006 3:42 AM
    Volume Serial Number is 1234-5678
    Windows is verifying files and folders...
    File and folder verification is complete.
    Windows has checked the file system and found no problems.
    
    2,036,494,336 bytes total disk space.
        3,055,616 bytes in 37 hidden files.
          331,776 bytes in 75 folders.
    1,191,337,984 bytes in 970 files.
      841,764,864 bytes available on disk.
    
            4,096 bytes in each allocation unit.
          497,191 total allocation units on disk.
          205,509 allocation units available on disk.
    Code:
    c:\...\My Downloads>chkdrive.exe e
    Scanned 1,007 files in 76 directories on drive E:
    Cumulative length of all files is 1,192,214,142 bytes
    Cluster size is 32,768 bytes (32K)
    
    Cluster Size    Overhang (Bytes)    Efficiency
    ============    ================    ==========
         2K              1,057,154         99.9%  
         4K              2,179,458         99.8%  
         8K              4,850,050         99.6%  
        16K             10,027,394         99.2%  
        32K             20,758,914         98.3%  <--
        64K             42,680,706         96.5%
    Also, here's a nice writeup on optimizing card speed.

    ERic
    Attached Images Attached Images
  4. #4  
    Is there a way to alter the read/write speeds? Do you just format them on your computer differently? My Transcend 150x is slow has all get out on my 700p... took 3 seconds to delete a BackupMan backup set on my 650, takes 3 minutes on my 700p!!! I find that deleting things off the card using file managers is painfully slow. I'd love to speed this up. Before I totally hijack your thread... I'll try CardSpeed and post results later. Thanks for starting this thread, perhaps some useful info about card usage on the 700p will emerge.
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by ERicJ
    My 2GB is definitely FAT32. But I get differing results on whether it has 4K or 32K clusters depending on which utility I use.

    ERic
    Nice post ERicJ. I think the chkdsk is accurate, because when I reformat with a custom cluster size, the chkdsk matches what I specified in the format command.

    As far as repeating the test, I don't want to make this an ordeal for everyone.. (I did run multiple tests, and if they weren't varying in results wildly posted a representative result set.

    What I am going for is a rough ballpark estimate of the various cards.

    P.S - If anyone knows how to make a table in Treocentral forums, would you please PM me?
    P.S.S. - I updated the main post with a link to formatting instructions.
  6.    #6  
    Just got my hands on a SanDisk 2GB miniSD card. I'm getting respectable scores:

    Wrt32bit: 165 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB:126639 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 2912711 bytes/sec

    Fat16 32K clusters (Factory format)
  7. #7  
    Using a Sandisk Ultra II 1.0GB with integreated USB.
    Wrt32bit: 93
    Wrt8kb: 39420
    Read8KB: 262440
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Using a Sandisk Ultra II 1.0GB with integreated USB.
    Wrt32bit: 93
    Wrt8kb: 39420
    Read8KB: 262440
    Any chance you can run chkdsk on the card, and post the output? (From a dos prompt, type chkdsk driveletter

    In my case I type:
    chkdsk g:

    Thanks!!
  9. #9  
    I get "access denied"
  10.    #10  
    Still waiting for scores from other 4GB cards.
  11. ERicJ's Avatar
    Posts
    758 Posts
    Global Posts
    779 Global Posts
    #11  
    Buddy at work just got his Transcend 150x 4GB yesterday. Standard formatting:

    Wrt32bit: 93 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 138700 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 3744914 bytes/sec

    Above results are from his Treo700p. I tried his card in my 700p and got numbers ~10% faster on write speeds.

    ERic
  12. #12  
    Okay, I've got an A-Data 4GB 150x card, bought from Newegg.com

    It was originally formatted with the 4k clusters and had very bad performance. The test scores were as follows:
    --------------------------------------------------------
    2561428K free 3905020k total

    Finished in 7.8 seconds
    Wrt32bit: 331 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 46561 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 3276800 bytes/sec
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    So I copied everything off of my card to my PC using a card reader and then reformatted using:
    format /fs:FAT32 /V:A-DATA /A:32k F:

    Then I tried the test with the card empty:
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    3911648K free / 3911680K total
    Finished in 2.17 seconds
    Wrt32bit: 388 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 236165 bytes/sec
    Read8kb: 3276800 bytes/sec
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Then I copied 380MB back onto the card (all I had time for before I had to leave) and ran the test again:

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    3501184K free / 3911680K total
    Finished in 2.83 seconds
    Wrt32bit: 272 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 173605 bytes/sec
    Read 8KB: 3276800 bytes/sec
    --------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, after copying the last 1.2GB of data back onto the card, my final results:

    2525408K free / 3911680K total
    Finished in 2.52 seconds
    Wrt32bit: 367 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 184608 bytes/sec
    Read8kb 3276800 bytes/sec

    It should be noted that I tried that last one a few times and got some widely varying results. I got the Wrt32bit scores anywhere from around 250 to up to 357. I don't know how good the measuring system is, but formatting at 32k has definitely made a huge improvement on the write speed, by an order of magnitude.

    [HTML]
    <TABLE>
    <TR><TD></TD><td>secs</td><TD>Wrt32bit</td><td>Wrt8KB</td><td>Read8KB</td></tr>
    <tr><td>4K</td>7.8<td>331</td><td>46561</td><td>3276800</td></tr>
    <tr><td>32K-empty</td>2.17<td>388</td><td>236165</td><td>3276800</td></tr>
    <tr><td>32K-340MB</td>2.83<td>272</td><td>173605</td><td>3276800</td></tr>
    <tr><td>32K-1.3GB</td>2.52<td>367</td><td>184608</td><td>3276800</td></tr>
    </table>
    [/HTML]
  13. #13  
    Good find IDtheTarget I have the same card (from Zipzoomfly). I formatted it with Cardinfo, and use it to backup to using NVBackup, and moved a bunch of songs onto it. I ran Cardspeed and it said poor speed or something to that affect. I was disappointed. Saw your thread, downloaded Card Reader, copied all files to PC, and reformatted 32K. Cardspeed now says speed excellent, and I get approximately the same results you reported. Thank you.
  14. meinken's Avatar
    Posts
    214 Posts
    Global Posts
    218 Global Posts
    #14  
    For a RiData 4gb Pro 150x, I got Wrt32bit 23, Wrt8kb 46397, Read8kb 3276800
    The card is formatted in 32k clusters, and currently has only 110mb free.
  15. #15  
    Wow thanks for the format tip. My 32 bit didnt change much but the 8bit increased dramatically.

    before
    32bit 94b/sec
    8bit 70091 b/sec
    Read8kb 3276800 b/sec

    NOW
    32k 102 b/sec
    8k 182044 b/sec
    read8kb 3276800 b/sec

    An increase of over 100,000 for Wrt8kb. Also, before I reformatted I was getting "Card Speed is Poor" result each time. Now "Card Speed is good" every test.
  16. #16  
    Ok one more thing to add. Deleting a backup in Backupman took about half a second compared to almost 1 min before the format. Very nice. Also recording video with camcorder seems to be normal now like my 650. Before it would take about 4-6 seconds before I can review it. Now it's almost instant. I'm gonna test a few more things but this is definitely worth the 2 hours I spent saving and copying stuff back to card.
  17. ERicJ's Avatar
    Posts
    758 Posts
    Global Posts
    779 Global Posts
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by todivefor
    [...]I ran Cardspeed and it said poor speed or something to that affect. I was disappointed. Saw your thread, downloaded Card Reader, copied all files to PC, and reformatted 32K. Cardspeed now says speed excellent[...]
    A note about the Card Speed popup that reports things like:

    "Card Speed is Good
    Avoid 22KHz PCM"

    This seems to be based only on the wall clock time of the test and not the actual write speed benchmark numbers. Under 3 seconds will report "Excellent", between 3 and ? will report "Good", over ? will report "Poor". (I don't have a card slow enough to rate poor ).

    Case in point see these results from back-to-back runs on my 2GB card:

    Finished in 2.40 seconds
    Wrt32bit: 348 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 168041 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 2912711 bytes/sec

    Says "Excellent"

    vs.

    Finished in 3.51 seconds
    Wrt32bit: 591 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 216647 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 2912711 bytes/sec

    Says "Good"

    Clearly the "Good" benchmark numbers were significantly better than the "Excellent" ones, but slower on the wall clock. This reinforces the need to run Card Speed multiple times and take an average of the results.

    ERic
  18. #18  
    I don't have numbers to post, but i did format my trensend for 32k cluster as stated in the other thread and have a noticed a signifigant improvement in my backup speeds. i persoanlly use BackUpPluc with absoulutly no
    problems
  19. tc600's Avatar
    Posts
    305 Posts
    Global Posts
    306 Global Posts
    #19  
    I got the Transcend 150x 4GB and get numbers similar to Brandorr:

    4GB Transcend x150 Fat32 (32K clusters)
    ----------------------------------------
    Wrt32bit: 18-24 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 36817-48455 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 3276800 bytes/sec

    I also tried an A-Data 150x 4GB. At first it wouldn't get recognized at all by either my Treo 700p or by my card readers. I tried again a day later and it was occasionally recognized, usually more recognized by my card readers. While it was working I got these results:

    4GB A-Data x150 Fat32 (4K clusters)
    ------------------------------------
    Wrt32bit: 21 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 11046-12232 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 1008246 bytes/sec

    4GB A-Data x150 Fat32 (32K clusters)
    ------------------------------------
    Wrt32bit: 18-23 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 36561-45829 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 3276800 bytes/sec

    The A-Data was too frequently unrecognized by my Treo 700p for my comfort, so it's going back for a replacement. I'm hoping the replacement will yield numbers closer to IDtheTarget's numbers.

    I also noticed that I couldn't get the Transcend to perform up to ERicJ's numbers, so I tried some other scenarios. Having read that the smaller cards would often run faster when formatted with FAT (FAT16) than with FAT32, I thought I'd test it out on the Transcend. The only way to do it was to partition the card to have a 2GB partition, and I was able to do it multiple ways. I did it with Fdisk from a Win98 bootdisk and also with Partition Magic from a command prompt. That left me with these curious results:

    4GB Transcend x150 Fat (2GB partition, 32K clusters)
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Wrt32bit: 2720, 971, 24 bytes/sec
    Wrt8KB: 1542023, 1139756, 48276 bytes/sec
    Read8KB: 3276800, 3276800, 3276800 bytes/sec

    The first two runs were lightning fast, but as I continued to repeat the tests, the results came down to the range I got when I had formatted it as FAT32 with 32K clusters. I popped the card out and tried it again, and again the first two runs were always faster, so I popped the card out and tried testing the card with VFSMark instead. Here are the results from the various runs:

    4GB Transcend x150 Fat32 (32K clusters)
    ----------------------------------------
    File Create: 120, 120
    File Delete: 92, 92
    File Write: 16, 17
    DB Export: 77, 78
    DB Import: 128, 127

    4GB Transcend x150 Fat (2GB partition, 32K clusters)
    ---------------------------------------------------
    File Create: 2257, 2124
    File Delete: 2720, 2125
    File Write: 17, 17
    DB Export: 81, 83
    DB Import: 133, 124

    Each of the 2GB Fat partition tests were run immediately after I popped the card back into the Treo 700p, and you'll notice that the first two tests come back with far higher results than "normal". By the time the File Write test is active, it seems to have returned to it's "normal" level of performance. I'm wondering if anyone has any theories at all for why I get these results (and only when the card is formatted as FAT on a 2GB partition)?

    Another random observation, the total space count on the cards is slightly higher with the larger clusters (although you're still likely to lose more space due to the inefficiency of the larger clusters than you'll regain from the reduced size of the File Allocation Table):

    4GB Transcend x150
    -------------------
    4K clusters: 4,108,664,832 bytes
    32K clusters: 4,115,660,800 bytes

    4GB A-Data x150
    ----------------
    4K clusters: 4,108,632,064 bytes
    32K clusters: 4,115,628,032 bytes

    Lastly, the writeup on optimizing card speed in ERicJ's post mentions a bunch of formatting tools that allow you to block the creation of the "Backup FAT", but they all seem to be for PocketPC. Does anyone know of any Palm-based or even WinXP-based utilities that could do the same trick? I'd like to find out if that possibly helps speed, on the Palm side as well.
  20.    #20  
    I have been avoiding doing this, but I do have a 700w sitting on the shelf.. If I get some time I will reformat my card with only one FAT table. (It's a pain shutting down my Treo to copy all the stuff off, reformat in the 700p and then run a benchmark, and then copy the data back and run another benchmark..)

    Anyone else want to save me the pain?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions