backtop


Print 116 comment(s) - last by Ghandi.. on Jan 11 at 8:29 AM

SDXC cards will be available in capacities up to 2TB

The Secure Digital (SD) format has come a long way since its original inception. Originally conceived as an offshoot of the Multimedia Card (MMC) format, SD cards have matured over the years into the Secure Digital High Capacity (SDHC) versions that are prevalent today for capacities greater than 2GB.

Current SDHC cards are artificially limited to just 32GB, which means that a new standard is being ushered in to boost capacities into the stratosphere. As a result, the new Secure Digital eXtended Capacity (SDXC) format was introduced today at CES. SDXC cards have a theoretical maximum capacity of 2TB and theoretical maximum read/write speeds of 300MB/sec.

The first SDXC cards will hit the market during the first quarter of 2009; however, these first generation cards will have a maximum transfer rate of 104 MB/sec.

"SDXC combines a higher capacity roadmap with faster transfer speeds as a means to exploit NAND flash memory technology as a compelling choice for portable memory storage and interoperability," said Gartner's Joseph Unsworth, research director, NAND Flash Semiconductors. "With industry support, SDXC presents manufacturers with the opportunity to kindle consumer demand for more advanced handset features and functionality in consumer electronics behind the ubiquitous SD interface."

"SDXC is a large-capacity card that can store more than 4,000 RAW images, which is the uncompressed mode professionals use, and 17,000 of the fine-mode most consumers use. That capacity, combined with the exFAT file system, increases movie recording time and reduces starting time to improve photo-capturing opportunities," said Canon General Manager Shigeto Kanda. "Improvements in interface speed allow further increases in continuous shooting speed and higher resolution movie recordings. As a memory card well suited to small-sized user-friendly digital cameras, the SDXC specification will help consumers realize the full potential of our cameras."

We should expect to first seeing SDXC cards from the usual suspects such as SanDisk, Lexar, and Kingston. SDXC will more than likely carry a hefty premium over current SDHC cards, but expect to see that price differential close with time.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

2Tb on an SD stick...
By Motoman on 1/7/2009 11:54:43 AM , Rating: 5
*smacks self in head*

2Tb on a wafer thin SD card.

I remember seing one of the very first 1Gb hard drives to make it into production. It was externally housed in a case nearly as big as a mid-tower ATX PC. And probably cost like $3,000.

Damn, I'm old. When did I become old? And why wasn't I notified?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go gum my breakfast mash.




RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By codeThug on 1/7/2009 12:00:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And why wasn't I notified?

This is what happens when you miss the monthly teleconference calls.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By feraltoad on 1/7/2009 4:11:41 PM , Rating: 3
At the very least, he should have received his AARP magazine in the mail. Maybe they sent it to his Florida address. Not everyone is lucky enough to have one of those GIANT-BUTTON phones for a teleconference call.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By lagitup on 1/7/2009 4:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is what happens when you miss the monthly teleconference calls.


Why did you remind him? Now we're going to have to waste half the call explaining stuff again, way to go!


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By wwwebsurfer on 1/7/2009 12:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm only 22, but I remember running BIOS updates to get the 6GB drives to recognise correctly. Good times, good times.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Souka on 1/7/2009 12:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
My 1st HD in a computer was a whopping 20MB...

First HD upgrade I did cost $350 for a 324MB WesterDigital HD from Costco....man I ruled...heheheh...

We're all old....


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By othercents on 1/7/2009 1:01:28 PM , Rating: 5
The first hard drive I remember was for the old UNIX system at my office. It was <1mb and looked like a wash machine where you had to load the platters from the top.

Other


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Spivonious on 1/7/2009 2:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
You win. :)

The smallest hard drive I remember is the one on our old 386 machine with DOS 4. It was 2MB and we upgraded it to 6MB. I think the machine had 256K of RAM. The whole machine cost over $3000.

The first hard drive I bought was for the first machine I built, a Celeron 333A machine. The hard drive cost $250 and was 2.4GB. Back then there was no reason for more space.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By HavocX on 1/7/2009 4:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think you remember wrong. When the 386 got released both ram and hard drives were bigger than that, typically around 1 MB ram and 20 MB HD.

My first computer was an 8086 with 640 KB memory, 5.25" drives only and 10 MB HD.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By foolsgambit11 on 1/7/2009 6:41:10 PM , Rating: 3
I know my 386 (SX) had a 14MB HD. It had no extended or expanded RAM, though. Nor did it have upper memory. 640KB, total. Isn't that amazing? Just 15 years ago, Windows could be run on 640KB of memory, and fit on a 14MB HD with plenty of space left over for games. If, as the article says, 2 TB can hold 17,000 fine jpeg images, then my 14MB HD could hold zero fine jpeg images - each image is about 118MB. One jpeg wouldn't fit on the average hard drive for several years.

Yowsa.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Spivonious on 1/8/2009 4:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps. I do know that we had the math coprocessor installed.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By wordsworm on 1/7/2009 2:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
My first computer was a Coco from Radio Crap. It had 16KB of memory and a very unreliable tape drive. 1MB of hard disk would've been heaven to me at that time. There's nothing worse than saving a program that took an hour to write only to lose it even though you saved it 5 times to be sure... those were the days.

When I graduated to the 10MB on the 8088, I thought I was in *heaven*. I was too young for porn in those days. I remember copying games out of magazines (by hand). Those were the days... but to be honest, the BBS days were really cool. The Internet is great, and I'd never trade it in for those days, but I met a lot of flesh-and-blood geeks in those days.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By JediJeb on 1/7/2009 6:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
First computer I owned was an Atari 800XL, 64K ram and I think single density 5.25" floppy at 640k storage. But it also had a cartridge slot for pluging in ROM cartridges just like the game console so my wordprocessor worked much faster than those who had to load them from cassettes or floppies. Those also had a co-processor for graphics which made it faster for video than other computers of the time.

Atari was in the way to making some great computers till the previous CEO's sons took over when he retired, they completely killed the company, he even came back two years later but was unable to do more than salvage some of the arcade game business they had.

So miss those days, when you had to actually learn something about computers to use them.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/7/2009 6:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
Pffft you had it MADE !

My first "computer" was a Tandy T100 ( yes, someone called Tandy actually made computers ). It had uhhh NO Ram, no HD, and you hooked it up to a TV because monitors didn't really exist yet for home users.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2009 9:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure it had Ram. Anything Rom-only based would be totally nonprogrammable.

My first PC, an "Elf", had a grand total of 256 bytes (not MB or even KB) of Ram, and a couple 7-segment LEDs for a display. Monitor or even TV output? Don't even think about it.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Fritzr on 1/7/2009 10:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
Now come on the T100 had RAM -- 8KB on the first ones & later a massive 24KB ... OS overhead was 3130 bytes, Included were prductivity programs & a BASIC interpreter in ROM.

Although it was a private labeled Kyocera sold by Tandy not an actual Radio Shack design like the TRS-80 series.

Info from: http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c...

I started with the TS1000 (Timex licensed Sinclair ZX81) 2KB RAM for programs, display & OS overhead. Though it could be expanded to 16KB and there was a 64KB memory card that used banking to access the extra 48KB :)


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By sbmeirow on 1/8/2009 1:16:03 AM , Rating: 2
Magnetic Core Memory!


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By lordcheeto on 1/10/2009 12:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By DFranch on 1/7/2009 2:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
My first Computer only had a 1.2MB 5.25" floppy. I bought a 30MB Hard drive for $300. That is MB not GB. Now I have 1.6TB on my HTPC.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By JonnyDough on 1/7/2009 5:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, we are. Heh. The smallest drive I have laying around is a 130mb Toshiba 2.5" drive. It worked up until about 2 years ago when I accidentally dropped it. Doh!


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By emoser96 on 1/7/2009 9:17:51 PM , Rating: 3
Just think what our kids are going to say....

Man I remember when a cell phone was the size of a wallet...
Or I remember when they had these platter things called hard drives.... they only held terabytes of data.
I can't wait to hear the "I remember when's" about quantum computing begin


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By lordcheeto on 1/10/2009 12:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
When I was a kid, son, pluto was a planet! I am 19, and the smallest old school drive I've used was 3GB, that I can remember.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By lagitup on 1/7/2009 4:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
You guys are all old...at 16 the smallest drive I can remember was an 80gb WD =P


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By JonnyDough on 1/7/2009 5:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
Sick nerd. Grow some pubes! ROFL, just kidding young man. 80GB is still small compared to the drives of tomorrow. Micro technology is all about shrinkage. Shrinkage is usually bad though for other things. Lucky for you, you might still have a bit of growing to do yet!


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By rudolphna on 1/8/2009 12:35:05 AM , Rating: 2
george castanza syndrome.. rofl!


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By JonnyDough on 1/7/2009 5:56:28 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe some day you'll look back on this moment...

and run into a parked car. Good luck!


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Aeonic on 1/7/2009 12:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
Looking at NewEgg, I don't see any over 4GB. I think you can get 8GB, but we won't see 2TB cards for awhile :)

The thing is, the current specification, SDHC, has a theoretical max capacity of 2TB, but they limited it artificially (as the article noted). So this really isn't news, they just removed the artificial limit, and manufactures are now "allowed" to make bigger cards.

There's no tech breakthrough or anything as far as I can tell. Not that I don't enjoy the idea of a 2TB SD card :)


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By MozeeToby on 1/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By ChronoReverse on 1/7/2009 12:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how it could get smaller than the current MicroSD format and still be useful. SD, MiniSD, and MicroSD basically hits all the useful size formats.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By defter on 1/7/2009 12:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
32GB have been available for a while, for example here: http://www.amazon.com/Kingston-Class-Memory-SD4-32...

It was quite silly to limit SDHC to 32GB, that's only 16x capacity of a standard 2GB SD format. SDXC offers 64x capacity jump, so it's a bit better.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Chernobyl68 on 1/7/2009 1:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, this just looks like a "standard" being announced. How physically big would a card be today, that was 2TB? A Terabyte is at least 2 orders of magnitude larger than most SD cards or on the market. (neweggs largest today is 6GB) but flash drives are bigger, up to 64GB so far I think. I use flash drives more than the cards themselves.
It will be more than a few years to see anything close to a terabyte in a SD card.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By surt on 1/7/2009 1:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
I bought two 16GB sdhc from new egg in the last 6 months, both more than 2 months ago. Only $40 too, pretty cheap.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Jimbo1234 on 1/7/2009 1:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, 4GB can be had for about $7, 8GB for under $14, and 16GB for about $27.

Thye're all about the same for $/GB: cheap! 32GB at $128 gets more expensive.

I remember when I bought a 3GB HD for $300 in '97. Isn't technology great? Now if car prices scaled like that, we'd all be driving Bugattis.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Spectator on 1/7/2009 2:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Compare those stats with SSD storage. lol

if silicon + profit for 16GB (Wafer thin tech) = $27. how can intel possibly defend $600 ish for a 60gig SSD thats massive in comparrison.

Im guessing the Milking times are getting shorter in this new age.

just wait until smart ppl's work out how to program I7 cpu's default settings with all those nice pins on the top of the chip.

Fun times ahead for slow/arrogant/greedy tech providers. :)


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By knifesideleft on 1/7/2009 3:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it at least 6x the cost per gb? Why are we not all just throwing a bunch of SDHC cards together and running our computers on them? Why does the x-25m need all that extra hardware?

Well the write/read speeds are one. A good portion of cheap sdhc cards cant even write over 20 MB/s. The Intel drive can do something like 170. Normal hard drives can do between 70 and 100.

I also know it needs extra hardware to manage that data. Once instance that comes to mind is that flash can only be written a certain number of times before it wears out. This is ok for flash cards but hard drives can make small changes 100s of times. This drive would wear out in no time so it manages the writes in such a way that writes data evenly to make it last longer.

Its pretty new tech anyway which has considerable Research and Dev costs so they need to be sold for a premium to make back some of those costs.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By DragonMaster0 on 1/7/2009 3:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
The price of these cards really falls down. I bought a Patriot Memory 16GB SDHC card for ~$150 in Dec 2007. I got another one a few months ago for $40, and it now costs about $25.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By RamarC on 1/7/2009 2:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Looking at NewEgg, I don't see any over 4GB. I think you can get 8GB

there are a few 32GB SDHC cards for $100+. 16GB cards are fairly common and only $30.

the specification is limited to 32GB for compatibility and considered the practical limitations at the time the spec was issued some years ago.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By DragonMaster0 on 1/7/2009 4:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the specification is limited to 32GB for compatibility

*cough* FAT32 *cough* (Windows isn't able to format FAT32 partitions over 32GB large, even though the file system supports 2TB)

They talk about "exFAT" for the new cards, does Windows support it?


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By TomZ on 1/7/2009 4:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
exFAT is supported in Vista SP1.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By kensiko on 1/7/2009 9:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
Fat32Format :)


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Darkk on 1/8/2009 11:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
It is true Windows won't let you format a large hard drive in FAT32. However, you can use 3rd party software to format any size hard drive in FAT32. I have seen a 500GB hard drive formatted this way as a single partition and it works fine. Problem is FAT32 can't handle extreme large files such as 6gigs.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Dystopic on 1/7/2009 12:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
I remember 5MB & 10MB HDs back in 1988 - 5.25" FH. the 5MB was around $800 and the 10MB was around $1000. I still have one of the 5MB ST506 drives.

1Gb disk - 125MB were never as large as a mid tower PC - unless you count some of those old IBM DAS drives -sounded like metal ball bearings bouncing on a drum.

But 2GB on a postage stamp...


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Motoman on 1/7/2009 12:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
...my dad bought an IBM PC AT when they first came out - for like $10k. I think it had something like a 10Mb hard drive in it...which was ridiculously huge at the time. I logged on to my first BBS with that computer <sniff>.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By PrazVT on 1/7/2009 12:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
And I remember our 286 with a 30mb hdd that never had enough space on it to install games. So more than once I had to zip the c:\Windows folder (windows 3.1 mind you) to free up enough space for stuff like Ultima, Police Quest, Test Drive 1, etc.

But wow..2TB. Are SSD drives 2TB yet?


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Quiescent on 1/7/2009 12:16:52 PM , Rating: 2
I feel the same way, and I'm 20.

The thing that makes me feel sad about this, is that I won't be able to use this nice looking SDXC in my SD/SDHC/MMC capable card reader on both my desktop and my EeePC 4G Surf. :(


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By HelToupee on 1/7/2009 12:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
You're old? I still have a full-height (think 3.5" HDD, but 5 inches tall) SCSI (25-pin, maybe) drive that held a whopping 50 Megs. Was going to salvage magnets.

I have a picture of my Dad standing next to one of the first "hard drives" ever produced. Thing was the size of a washing machine. I believe it held 20MB with all the platters installed.

IBM's first hard drive held 5MB, was the size of 2 refrigerators and weighed over a ton.

Get off-a my lawn, ya kids :)


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By theapparition on 1/7/2009 12:34:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
2Tb on a wafer thin SD card.

Whooaaa.....hold on there Grandpa.

This article only states that a new specification is available that will extend ultimate capacity towards 2Tb. Doesn't mean that someone has a 2Tb stick to sell you.

Similar to 40bit PAE, where something like 5peta-bytes are addressable, doesn't mean anything has been made that can take advantage of it. Current SDHC cards are theoretically limited to 32GB, but I don't believe any are offered at that size.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By heffeque on 1/7/2009 12:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
Just checking out the store downstairs and there's a 16 GB micro-SD card from Sandisk being sold for 62 euros. I'm pretty sure that if you look a little harder you'll probably find those 32 GB ones somewhere.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Jimbo1234 on 1/7/2009 1:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By coldpower27 on 1/8/2009 1:57:14 AM , Rating: 2
It makes sense they are introducing it now we have hit the 32GB barrier on SDHC cards. We need to start thinking aobut 64GB SDXC... but wow just wow at the capacity... Even 32GB for flash memory is alot...


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Shadowself on 1/7/2009 12:42:36 PM , Rating: 3
Children...

My first rotating magnetic memory device was the size of a small washing machine and held only 5 MB. It was a huge jump several years later for a 300 MB drive that fit into a 19" rack (6U height). (The stupid head of IT bought a bare bones drive and it fell upon me to write the drivers *and* build the enclosure and physical interface too!)

My first solid state drive was a special one of a kind back in the early 70s for a DEC machine with 16 kB to get us around how slow the tapes and disks were.

We've certainly come a long way.

Now where's those MP3 players and high end phones with 1 TB of storage? I don't need on yet (everything I want to put onto one, today, would fit within 64 GB), but in time I can see wanting 1 TB or more in my pocket.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Lord 666 on 1/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/7/2009 1:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
If you feel old, then I guess I'm trapped into the Pleistocene :(

First computer displayed this at startup:

**** COMMODORE 64 BASIC v2 ****
64k RAM system 38911 basic bytes free
Ready.

Storage: general electric dataset recorder.

I still miss issuing a sys 64738 command :(


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Jimbo1234 on 1/7/2009 1:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget Load "",8,1


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/7/2009 2:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
That was for the rich who had the 1541 disk drive :D

I remember a friend of mine who had the c128 with the 1571 drive and a fastload cartridge... I was amazed at the speed of that thing!

Really felt dizzy because of the vertiginous speeds that 2mhz CPU could attain in fast mode in contrast to my humble 1mhz CBM 64 :D

Never felt like a pro when doing a poke 53280,0 just to turn the screen border black? :D


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Motoman on 1/7/2009 2:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, I totally win the C64 war.

I had my C64 with me when I went to college. During the take-home final exam for Finite Math in my first semester, I got too lazy to properly look up the way to do a particularly funky solution, but it occurred to me that I could approximate it pretty easily.

So I wrote up some C64 BASIC to do some really simple arithmetic, and iterated it like 1,000 in a DO loop. Put my approximated result on the test, and handed in my ~10 lines of code for my "proof". Got half-credit on that answer...


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Motoman on 1/7/2009 2:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
...I later added an Amiga 500 (which rawked), but eventually gave in and bought a PC I think during my junior year in college. Swank 486SX at, I think, 33Mhz? Dialed into school with my external 2400 baud modem to get to the TSO screen to do my homework ;)


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Jimbo1234 on 1/8/2009 1:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, the A500. I had one of those with WB 1.3. I upgraded it to 1MB! with the trap door. I got sick of not having a battery backed up clock. Then I upgraded to a fat Agnus to get all chip mem. After that I installed an AdSpeed (14Mhz! 2X the original). Eventually even that got slow with 2 floppy drives, so I upraded to a GVP 68030 40Mhz side add-on with a 170MB SCSI HD and 1MB "Fast" RAM.

Those were the days when an OS fit onto 1 880KB disc and I actually knew what each file was for. Moria was the best game, although the interlace flicker on the images between levels was annoying. I never got around to getting a flicker fixer and multisync monitor. The Commodore (1084 I think was the model number) was hackable to run PAL at least for a bit more lines of res. It just required drilling out part of the rear casing to get to the other 2 knobs.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Motoman on 1/8/2009 11:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
...I'm not sure that Final Copy wasn't the best word processor ever made...


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Ytsejamer1 on 1/7/2009 2:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
ha ha...

The Old Vic20 I had back in the day had its storage on a tape cassette hooked to the computer somehow. I don't even remember. I played those centipede type games right off of tape. I ruled... :)


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Fritzr on 1/7/2009 10:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
The Datassette ... Digital cassette player that plugged into the Cassette Port on the back of the computer ... The Datassette worked with all of the CBM 8 bit machines. though I think there were a few models that did not have an open cassette port. There was a separate Datassette for the Plus 4/C-16 that had exta hardware in the computer end of the cable.

This was a very good drive. With the Rabbit card or Quicksave (typein printed in Compute! magazine) it was actually faster than the 1541 & 1571 floppy drives :)


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By DLeRium on 1/7/2009 2:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
You don't even have to go back that far. Remember in 2005 when the iPod Nano first came out? What was it? $200? People disassembled the 4gb flash drive to sell it on the internet for $230+. I remember paying triple digits for a "fast" 512mb card when I first got my camera in 2003.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By coldpower27 on 1/8/2009 1:48:47 AM , Rating: 2
2TB? That is still sometime away. Were not even quite there yet on the Hard Drive front. Let alone this new SDXC format, I think were only entering the arena of where 32GB SDHC are finally somewhat affordable in the 150-250 CAN range.

That amount is mind boggling.

Well I expect 64GB SDXC cards to be price at 300-500 CND minimum then at first whenever they appear though it truly depends on how much 32GB SDHC cards are at he time...


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By ggordonliddy on 1/9/2009 12:34:15 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you saying it can only do 2 tera bits instead of the reported 2 tera bytes ?

Un-f'ing-believable. Just pure laziness and/or maddening ignorance.


RE: 2Tb on an SD stick...
By Simpsonizer on 1/9/2009 2:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
2 TB ?? I thought it was a typo at first when I saw the headline! Absolutly blows my mind that a thin wafer chip can hold that much data reliably. To add hdd disks are behind now. I notice some are using an lower case b wich is usually for bits lol


JUST 104 MB/s
By Goty on 1/7/2009 12:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...however, these first generation cards will have a maximum transfer rate of 104 MB/sec.


Well darn, that's just not fast enough for me....

=P




RE: JUST 104 MB/s
By TomZ on 1/7/2009 1:03:16 PM , Rating: 2
That might sound fast, but if you actually had a 2TB drive using that interface speed, it would take probably a whole day to read or write the entire flash drive. I don't think too many users would be pleased with that kind of speed.


RE: JUST 104 MB/s
By Doormat on 1/7/2009 1:12:26 PM , Rating: 6
For the math impaired...

104MB/s = 6.2GB/min = 374GB/hr = 2TB in 5.3 hours

A 3x improvement brings the time down to 1.76 hours to read all 2TB.


RE: JUST 104 MB/s
By TomZ on 1/7/2009 3:00:35 PM , Rating: 3
The 104MB/s is only "peak" or "maximum" data transfer rate. The actual sustained transfer rate will be much slower, hence my "whole day" approximation.


RE: JUST 104 MB/s
By TomZ on 1/7/2009 11:26:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
For the math impaired...
That post gets a 6? The post where the guy gets the math right but the concept completely wrong?


RE: JUST 104 MB/s
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/7/2009 1:41:00 PM , Rating: 2
Unpleased?

Well... tell me how many hard drives have the ability to write constantly at no less than 100mb/sec.

And the article says that the first sdxc cards will work at that speed, but it says nothing about the size they'll have, and I'd bet they'll be nowhere nere 2tbs.

People, remember this is just a specification... I think that before or as soon as those 2TB, 300mb/s cards come into production, an SDUXC card standard will be replacing this one.

For now, we simply have little use for a card with such a high reading speed:

An USB2.0 high speed SDXC reader will be flooded before reaching its 60mb/s max theoretical speed (480mbits/sec).


RE: JUST 104 MB/s
By TomZ on 1/7/2009 3:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
My point, which I think you understood, is that there is a mismatch in the specification between the maximum permitted media size and the maximum transfer rate. It doesn't improve the utility of the product much to increase one and not the other.


RE: JUST 104 MB/s
By Black69ta on 1/8/2009 12:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
USB 3.0 Spec is already finalized and due sometime this year. I can't remember the throughput but is seems like its well over what would be needed for an external drive or a flash drive. I think it is faster than SATA 6.0Gbs


RE: JUST 104 MB/s
By lordcheeto on 1/10/2009 12:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
USB 3.0 is about 10x fater than USB 2.1, or 4.8 gigabits per second.


And of course
By shaw on 1/7/2009 12:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
That once massive hard drives became not enough after they found out about that new thing called the MP3. Then your harddrive quickly disappeared afterwards.




RE: And of course
By Jimbo1234 on 1/7/2009 1:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
More like lossless encoding. I have my entire CD collection in 320kbps MP3 and it's under 100GB. When TB drives are in the $100 range, it's not really an issue. Only the quality stuff I save in lossless format, and that's less than 5% of my music. 95% is really disposable.

Digital photography and HD video is what now eats HDs. I can snap away a GB worth of pictures with my new DSLR in a matter of minutes. AVCHD also takes up a ton of space.

I am sure video / photography pro's wouldn't mind at least 10TB or even 100TB drives.


RE: And of course
By shaw on 1/7/2009 1:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm talking about when MP3s first came out. When they first came out I had a 1GB hard drive in my Compaq Presario 100MHz and I thought it was pretty bad ass. Then when I found out about this new thing called MP3s suddenly my 1GB drive's space disappeared.


RE: And of course
By UNHchabo on 1/7/2009 2:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
Having your MP3s at 320kbps really isn't worth it. If you're archiving up your collection, you should rip everything to lossless, and as you say, nowadays music, even in lossless format, isn't really an issue for hard drive space. Meanwhile, 320kbps CBR is overkill if transparency is sufficient for you. Most likely, 192kbps VBR will be sufficient.

If I may put in a shameless plug, might I suggest using FlacSquisher?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/flacsquisher/

It's a program I wrote to convert my music collection from FLACs, which I keep for archival purposes, to Oggs, or MP3s, for use on portable devices (like my Rockbox'd Sansa). I use Oggs myself, because they handle gapless playback better than MP3s.


RE: And of course
By TomZ on 1/7/2009 3:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Meanwhile, 320kbps CBR is overkill if transparency is sufficient for you.
On the other hand - and the OP's point - is that disc space is so cheap, why not use 320kb/s? If you save a GB, you've only saved $0.25 worth of storage - so who cares about that?

Heck, HDD space is so cheap now that you could reasonably save your entire music collection in lossless, plus also in a couple of MP3 bitrates.


RE: And of course
By UNHchabo on 1/7/2009 3:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
That's what I do, myself. Rip to FLAC, use FlacSquisher to convert to Oggs, keep both. I listen to the FLACs at home, and the Oggs elsewhere.

My point was that if he isn't concerned with the space his music is taking up, then he may as well rip everything to FLACs. If he is concerned with the space his music is taking up, then he should rip to a smaller bitrate. For example, the 95% of his collection that he considers "disposable" would take up much less space if it were in MP3 or Ogg format at 192kbps VBR, rather than 320kbps CBR.


RE: And of course
By TomZ on 1/7/2009 4:10:18 PM , Rating: 3
I convert to MP3 mainly for its broad device compatibility, not the space savings. Few devices support WAV, FLAC (or Ogg for that matter), but all devices support MP3.


RE: And of course
By icanhascpu on 1/7/2009 5:27:06 PM , Rating: 1
320 is an overkill. If youre going that high, then just go lossless. It would be in the 500-600 range and much better for archiving. Convert them all later to 128/160 for portable listening. 192 is even an overkill unless you have a massive good system. AAC is much better at the same bitrate as mp3 so even 128 would be usually crisp.


RE: And of course
By Jimbo1234 on 1/8/2009 1:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I do have high end equipment (Theil speakers powered with an Integra DTR6.8), so I can hear the difference. 320 does sound better than 192. I like at least reasonable sound quality for even the disposable stuff. The other 5% is lossless or played off the disc.

Some new CDs however are poorly mastered and even off the disc they sound like crap. One example is Nelly Furtado which made me think something was wrong with my equipment. Well, it sounded just as horrible on $50K of stuff at the audio shop. Now Louis Armstrong, Jerry Refferty, or Dire Straits, those sound incredible.


RE: And of course
By Jimbo1234 on 1/8/2009 1:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
So spell checker.... grrrr. Jerry Rafferty.


Transfer Rate
By inighthawki on 1/7/2009 12:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The first SDXC cards will hit the market during the first quarter of 2009; however, these first generation cards will have a maximum transfer rate of 104 MB/sec.


Is it just me, or is the way this is worded make it sound like its "only" 104MB/s, ha. Anyway, that is REALLY fast, I'd like to see the price, maybe they could make one of those SD>SATA adapters for these cards, what a fast, and large, hard drive that would make. Quite portable too...




RE: Transfer Rate
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/7/2009 12:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
I was talking in comparison to the 300MB/sec theoretical speeds ;)


RE: Transfer Rate
By PrazVT on 1/7/2009 1:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly...I think the most I've seen on sustained disk to disk transfers have been 80-90MB/s on two (newer) 7.2k rpm SATA II drives. But I've seen 55MB/s copying from a 8GB sandisk Ultra SD card to the HDD - and that was weird since it was plugged into a usb 2.0 card reader. Considering these are used for storage if the real speed is anywhere close to 104MB/s then it's all good.

Ultimately either the HDD or the flash memory is going to be the bottleneck right?


RE: Transfer Rate
By foolsgambit11 on 1/7/2009 6:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing the first cards will not have anywhere near 2TB of storage space, either. Do they say what the initial sizes might be, or just speeds?


RE: Transfer Rate
By Shadowself on 1/7/2009 12:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
There are some camera systems on the drawing boards that have raw data rates of almost 40 GB per second. Memory bandwidths still have a long way to go to catch up before we can use "standard" commercial-off-the-shelf memory hardware. It's coming along, but we need a factor of more than 10 improvement.


RE: Transfer Rate
By Jimbo1234 on 1/7/2009 1:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
My new Canon Rebel XSi takes shots in RAW+JPEG at 3.5fps. RAW images are about 12MB, and the JPEGS about 4-5MB. So 16MB*3.5/s = 56MB/s. Yes, I use a class 6 card, but at 20 or 30MB/s it is still a bottleneck at some point unless I use just JPEG mode.

Now 40GB/s??? Yeah, that's insane.


RE: Transfer Rate
By strikeback03 on 1/7/2009 2:30:37 PM , Rating: 3
The reason you can only take a few images at that speed though is that the buffer fills up, and the camera cannot write to the card at the same speed it can shoot at. DPReview measured transfer rates of around 9MB/s. They also stated the maximum RAW+JPEG rate for their test sample was 2.5fps.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page1...


RE: Transfer Rate
By Jimbo1234 on 1/8/2009 1:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
Right, that was my point. The fastest cards today can easily bottleneck the camera.


SDXC Makes Bluray Disc Obsolete
By SpaceJumper on 1/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: SDXC Makes Bluray Disc Obsolete
By chmilz on 1/7/2009 1:19:15 PM , Rating: 1
Blu-Ray is already obsolete, due to digital streaming. Of course, bandwidth and audio-quality will need to improve before it's BETTER than BD, but it's already en route to supplant physical media altogether.


RE: SDXC Makes Bluray Disc Obsolete
By Jimbo1234 on 1/7/2009 1:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think I said BD's death is on the horizon a few months ago. Now with the 32GB spec limitation gone, it's only a matter of time (and probalby not that far off) before it will make more sense to put a movie on a "postage stamp" than on a disc. The music industry is already considering replacing the CD with SD.

The only real issue may be shelf life. I'm not sure which is better yet: solid state, or non-writable/OEM optical.

I cannot wait until these things are available. Offsite backup will become much easier. Right now I lug around an external harddrive to work with my pictures, music, video, etc. about once per month. You know, in case the house burns down. But I do not have 2 of these. So one day per month there is a chance I could lose near everything. Backing up to DVD would require too many discs, and BD, well, it seems too expensive. Again, I cannot wait for even several hundred GB cards.


By psychobriggsy on 1/7/2009 3:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
There is a significant price difference between pressing a CD and making an SD card. The problem is that the former is cents - and the cost of pressing bluray will drop to cents as well, whereas the latter is probably a dollar for a 1GB card. Problem is that it will always be a dollar, you'll just get more storage on it. Bonus is that non-sold albums can be rewritten instead of trashed - but probably cheaper to throw them away still.

Now a 2GB SD card with a 24-bit 96kHz (good-as-) lossless album and a 256kbps AAC for the portable player would be really handy. Let's get away from archaic CDs with their bitdepth issues with heavily compressed (audio, not file) music like Death Magnetic. Time to move to a new format I say, and maybe the mechanical CD's day is up. No more CD players to go wrong...

And yes, I think that SD is a viable competitor to BluRay in the long run (maybe Sony should have left the slot in all PS3s!). I'm not sold on digital downloads being the immediate future replacement for physical media however.


By PrazVT on 1/7/2009 1:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it's even more than 40. If you've ever ripped a blu-ray movie, the main .m2ts file is anywhere from 20gb - 35gb on average. Remove the foreign language audio tracks and you've got a ~15 - 20GB file. Downconvert DTS-HD / DD True-HD to 5.1 AC3 and it's even smaller. I routinely make 720p / 5.1 ac3 .m2ts files to play on my PS3 off an external 500gb hdd. I keep 'em at 4gb (fat32 limitation), but man these things eat space. 2TB on flash memory would rock!


By Doormat on 1/7/2009 2:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
Unlikely, to say the least. Even if prices come down by 75%, a 32GB SDHC or SDXC card will still cost $25, and if a BR movie is on 2-layer media, its 50GB of data.

You'd need that 32GB SD card to be about $1-3 before movie companies would even consider it releasing movies on that instead of a spinning optical disc.

You're looking at 7-10 years before solid state mediums are both large enough and cheap enough to start distributing media on.


By inighthawki on 1/7/2009 4:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
You're forgetting the MAJOR point, that blu-ray discs are going to be FAR more cost effective. You don't seriously think you'll see a 2TB flash card cheaper than even a 50 pack of blu-ray discs do you? Even now 32GB cards are in the hundreds of dollars, compared to a couple dollars for a blu-ray disc.


My brain hurts
By chmilz on 1/7/2009 12:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
We'll soon have a potential 2TB with great performance on an external stick. So what's the holdup with SSD capacity and performance?




RE: My brain hurts
By ksherman on 1/7/2009 12:25:23 PM , Rating: 5
JMicron


USB 3.0
By ceefka on 1/7/2009 3:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
This development screams for USB 3.0. There is now way my USB 2.0 card reader can get anywhere near 100MB/s.




RE: USB 3.0
By DragonMaster0 on 1/7/2009 4:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read that USB 3.0 finally only brings 150MB/s sustained rates?


RE: USB 3.0
By TomZ on 1/7/2009 5:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
Got links?


SDXC needs matching port.
By teckytech9 on 1/7/2009 3:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new SDXC specification provides up to 2 terabytes storage capacity and accelerates SD interface read/write speeds to 104 megabytes per second this year, with a road map to 300 megabytes per second.

Current USB 2.0 and Firewire rates won't match the speeds offered in 1Q 2009.

(USB 2.0) rate of 480 Mbit/s (60 MB/s)
(FireWire 400) rates to 393.216 Mbit/s (49.152 MB/s)

Test show that FireWire performs better than USB 2.0. Assuming that a large file needs to be transferred, the sustained rates are usually half or less than the theoretical maximum. Hence, the upgrades needed to the ports are:

(USB 3.0) rate of 5.0 Gbit/s (625 MB/s)
FireWire 3200 rates to 3144 Mbit/S (393MB/s)

In the interim, eSATA (300MB/s) seems to be the better option to utilize these SDXC cards. Assuming one can utilize these cards for external storage then eSATA has the S.M.A.R.T advantage. The only drawback is the absence of power and lack of accessible eSATA ports on older PC cases. I'd assume that one could find a vacant SATA port on their motherboard, and remove a rear metal latch and attach the SATA cable accordingly.

Perhaps this paves the way for thumb drive makers in designing rechargeable devices using future SDXC cards. The SATA 3.0 standard is just around the corner too.




RE: SDXC needs matching port.
By TomZ on 1/7/2009 3:15:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The only drawback [with eSATA] is the absence of power...
There is a new development to add power over eSATA, if you haven't come across it yet:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9850343-1.html


why not a pciex1 card?
By teflonbilly on 1/7/2009 2:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
I was reading this and with the transfer speeds, even at the low end they talk about first , would it not be possible to make a card, plugged into a pciex1 or x4 slot to hold a few of these sd cards? I remember a while back (couple years I think) reading about pci cards that hold ram to be used as a super fast hard drive. To me this would be amazing. To buy 3 or 4 of these cards, plug them into the card in your computer, or even to a slot int he front of your tower, and use them as your drive. Not just as basic backup or something but for system or transferable storage.

Am I missing something or is this actually a possibility?




RE: why not a pciex1 card?
By TomZ on 1/7/2009 3:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
Possible, yes. But SATA/SAS is maybe a better choice since BIOS, operating systems, and drivers already support this type of interface. The hardware for what you describe is not a big deal, it just would also require a lot of new software.


8 GB microSDHC
By Josh7289 on 1/8/2009 1:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
I just got an 8 GB microSDHC card yesterday. My first time seeing something so small with so much storage in person, and it absolutely blew my mind.

But this, this SDXC. Un-freaking-believable. You know, I really think that despite all our flaws, humans are really really smart creatures if we can create things like these.

And I'm sure 10 years from now SDXC will have been replaced by something even better... It's all so amazing.




RE: 8 GB microSDHC
By lordcheeto on 1/10/2009 1:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
This is mindblowing. I can't imagine using so much space, really.


By mondo1234 on 1/7/2009 2:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Current SDHC cards are artificially limited to just 32GB


I was unaware this was an artificial limit!




neato
By zinfamous on 1/7/2009 2:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
The first computer in our house sported a monolithic 750kb HDD.

good times.




And where is SDXC SSD?
By iwod on 1/7/2009 8:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
If first Gen SDXC can go to 104MB/s,
Why are SSD still limited to 2xx MB/s?
With 4 - 6 of these we could easily hit 400 - 600 MB/s SSD.




Developing
By Ghandi on 1/11/2009 8:29:58 AM , Rating: 2
How much good things will this bring to the starving people in the world, that never will read discussions like this?




2TB?
By lancito on 1/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: 2TB?
By shaw on 1/7/09, Rating: 0
"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki