Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. santas's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    641 Global Posts
       #1  
    I seem to remember reading about something like this, but I can't find anything...

    I bought my 1gb ultra II at Costco yesterday. Formatted it on my Treo 600. Copied all my stuff from my old card onto it. Seemed kind of slow. Ran VFSMark on it, and indeed it was a bit slower than my 512Kb regular SanDisk.

    Reformatted the card. Got a nice peppy VFSMark. Copied the stuff back to the card... slow card again.

    It's got stuff on it, but it's not full. It's only got about 450Kb.

    So...

    I'm using the card reader on my printer. Could it be it's fault?

    Is the card slow and I should take it back?

    Should I cry?
    Less than 400 posts to get my own little treo icon!
  2. #2  
    I'm also surprised !
    First i had a 256 MB Sandisk Ultra II. Very good speed.
    Then i upgraded to 1GB Ultra II.
    When i run VFSMark i get a score of 438 in my Treo 650, maximum.

    But i've seen in other threads or comparison tables the scores for this
    card are mostly 500 to 550 ! My card was fresh formated in the Treo.

    Did i buy a B-quality card or is it a re-labled card ?
  3. santas's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    641 Global Posts
       #3  
    Anyone else having this problem? I'm getting a VFSMark of 210. I get a 215 on my regular SanDisk. I'm not expecting Treo650 numbers, but I was expecting up around 280, and much faster write time (mine is only 54).

    Should I take it back an try another card?
    Less than 400 posts to get my own little treo icon!
  4. #4  
    Here are my results with identical files on each card, both were formatted with my Treo 650:

    SanDisk 2GB SD Card : VFSMark of 528
    SanDisk 2GB Ultra II SD Card: VFSMark of 370, 396 on 2nd run.

    So, why did I buy the Ultra?

    (See post #6 below.)
    Last edited by gtwo; 06/15/2005 at 04:06 PM.
  5. #5  
    Mine (purchased from Costco) seemed slower than expected too, but much faster than the regular 256 card I replaced. I attribute it to bigger-the-card = slower, but I could be wrong. I haven't looked that closely at the numbers, since it is working fine for me.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by Perry Holden
    Here are my results with identical files on each card, both were formatted with my Treo 650:

    SanDisk 2GB SD Card : VFSMark of 528
    SanDisk 2GB Ultra II SD Card: VFSMark of 370, 396 on 2nd run.

    So, why did I buy the Ultra?

    This may be a problem with the VFSMark utility . . . . I get the slower "test" mark on the Ultra II, but the Ultra II is twice as fast in loading my picture thumbnails when I open Pics and Videos.

    It also is faster in saving a picture I take. (I have the save direct to card option on.)

    I will play for awhile -- and see how I feel about the Ultra II card speed in overall subjective use vs. the standard card.

    Cheers, Perry.
    Last edited by gtwo; 06/15/2005 at 03:06 PM.
  7. santas's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    641 Global Posts
       #7  
    Sadly, mine gets a slow VFSMark and it seems to be no faster opening files than my old non Ultra card
    Less than 400 posts to get my own little treo icon!
  8. santas's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    641 Global Posts
       #8  
    Well, in the hopes that it was my card, I returned it and got another. Still slow. I give up. At least I waited for the special sale, so I only paid $15 more than the regular card.
    Less than 400 posts to get my own little treo icon!
  9. aldamon's Avatar
    Posts
    650 Posts
    Global Posts
    684 Global Posts
    #9  
    For a $15 difference, I would have kept the Ultra II regardless.
  10. #10  
    Dont get hung up on the overall VFSMark number. Compare the individual read and write numbers of the results. They are a better indicator of card performance. Also, a card may get slower performance numbers when it is loaded with files.
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!
  11. #11  
    I think i will give up using VFSMark for speed compares. It was created in 2001, chances that i does not work correctly with actual cards are to high for me.

    BTW: My SanDisk SD Ultra II 1 GB works fast, though VFSMark states a slow speed !
  12. #12  
    Same experience. Photo thumbnails now fly open (w/ the Ultra II), rather than the pixel by pixel refresh (from my standard SD card). (Okay, it wasn't that bad.)

    Cheers, Perry.
    Last edited by gtwo; 07/14/2005 at 12:05 PM.
  13. #13  
    You guys are starting to scare me with your speed tests. I just bought 2 of the Sandisk Ultra II 2GB SD cards, and I want to believe these are the fastest on the market.

    What I know for a certainty is that these same cards work great with my Canon SD 300 pocket digital camera, and really takes advantage of the fast speed versus the slow cards.

    I shoot lots of stills pics and videos, and play lots of MP3 music from the cards, and I've found the Sandisk Ultra cards to be very fast...so I'm not going to worry about the naysayers.
  14. #14  
    The Ultras ARE very fast. (The Extremes are even faster ). The Treo reader may not take full advantage of these higher speeds like a newer camera does, and VFSMark is a little funky how it computes that final number. The individual numbers from the tests are much more telling.
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!

Posting Permissions