Print 31 comment(s) - last by vgermax.. on Feb 22 at 12:06 PM

Lexar 300x Professional UDMA CompactFlash Card

Lexar Professional UDMA FireWire 800 Reader and Professional Dual-Slot USB Reader
Lexar's new CompactFlash cards offer minimum sustained write speeds of 45MB/sec

When it comes to memory cards used in high-end D-SLR cameras, speed is king. SanDisk and Lexar typically battle it out for the speed crown in the professional sector, but today Lexar has just kicked things up a notch.

The previous speed king was SanDisk's Extreme IV CompactFlash series which offer up to 40MB/sec sequential read and write speeds thanks to Enhanced Super-Parallel Processing or “ESP.” Lexar has now struck back with its 300x Professional UDMA CompactFlash cards which offer minimum sustained write speeds of 45MB/sec. According to Lexar, the new cards offer a 125% performance increase over its previous 133x Professional CompactFlash offerings.

"Our new Professional UDMA 300x speed-rated cards dramatically improve the photographer's workflow by reducing the time needed to download images after a shoot. Working in conjunction with one of our new UDMA-enabled CompactFlash card readers, a photographer instantly benefits by having more time to capture, manage, and share his or her images," said John Omvik, Director of Professional Product Marketing for Lexar.

The 300x Professional UDMA CompactFlash Cards will be available in capacities of 2GB, 4GB and 8GB starting in April. At that time, Lexar will also introduce a new Professional UDMA FireWire 800 Reader ($79.99) and Professional Dual-Slot USB Reader ($49.99) to take full advantage of the Professional UDMA 300x CompactFlash cards.

Comments     Threshold

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

By Alphafox78 on 2/20/2007 4:17:16 PM , Rating: 3
Can anyone say readyboost?!

RE: Vista
By Master Kenobi on 2/20/2007 4:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
My thoughts exactly.

RE: Vista
By rudyv1 on 2/20/2007 4:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
I thought only USB 2.0 devices could be used for Windows Vista ReadyBoost feature?

Would these compact flash cards now be the fastest possible medium to use with ReadyBoost?

RE: Vista
By Alphafox78 on 2/20/2007 4:29:10 PM , Rating: 1
... get a usb reader ...

RE: Vista
By PAPutzback on 2/20/2007 4:50:48 PM , Rating: 4
Supported Form Factors and Busses
ReadyBoost supports USB flash drives, Secure Digital cards, CompactFlash cards, Memory Stick over PCI, and PCIe and SSA busses, which effectively includes most internal card readers in mobile PCs. ReadyBoost does not support cards attached to external USB readers or devices attached to a USB 1.0 and USB 1.1 bus.

RE: Vista
By giantpandaman2 on 2/20/2007 4:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see the big deal about ReadyBoost. Vista is a 64bit operating system, so you can just buy 8 GB of RAM if you really want to. Not to mention it's helluva lot faster just to buy more RAM. And, considering the prices of high speed flash it's not a whole lot more expensive.

RE: Vista
By Martin Blank on 2/20/2007 8:35:13 PM , Rating: 3
Your motherboard has to support running that much RAM, and 2GB modules are still pretty expensive; installing 8GB of DDR2 as 4x2GB is going to set you back around a thousand dollars, give or take a hundred or so. Using this will probably be less expensive.

RE: Vista
By mindless1 on 2/22/2007 2:41:24 AM , Rating: 2
Less expensive but substantially slower. Did anyone forget about the overhead of continual USB access?

If your PC didn't already have 4GB of memory, you'd be far better off going that route instead of trying to add some flash card. On the other hand, this card paired with an UDMA capable CF-IDE adapter should be great for embedded systems or some users' notebook, HDD-replacement needs. Did I write "everyone"? No, there's bound to be people who try to put everything and the kitchen 'sink, plus 200GB of pr)n and DVD rips on their notebook, obviously those less common needs will require uncommonly high amounts of storage. The average user on the other hand, ends up using less space on their laptop than XP's system restore did.

RE: Vista
By kextyn on 2/20/2007 4:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
I will never understand why people like the idea of readyboost. USB is SLOW compared to RAM or HDD. USB 2.0 maxes out around 50-60MB/sec and this is the minimum speed on some hard drives. With a partition optimized for virtual memory usage on a fast drive (Raptor) you could easily sustain 80MB/sec.

RE: Vista
By Flunk on 2/20/2007 4:44:52 PM , Rating: 3
The idea is to have persistant storage that doesn't come off of the hard drive to store information that would otherwise be shuffled into virtual memory. This frees up the hard drive to be accessed by other processes at the same time as the flash drive. Also flash memory does have much lower seek times than hard disks so for large numbers of small files it would be faster.

I'm not too sure how useful this technology is either but I do understand the reasoning behind it.

RE: Vista
By masher2 on 2/20/2007 5:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "USB is SLOW compared to RAM or HDD..."

RAM isn't part of the picture, ReadyBoost uses a USB device in place of your HDD. And while HDDs do have higher sustained transfer rates, flash cards have negligible access time. For large numbers of small i/o read requests, flash is much faster.

RE: Vista
By kextyn on 2/20/2007 6:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
RAM IS part of the picture. Instead of using a USB flash drive you can add RAM and use a RAM drive instead. Any way you look at it it's better to have more/faster RAM or more HDD space. USB should not be used for things that RAM is designed for.

RE: Vista
By Motley on 2/20/2007 6:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
kextyn, please go and google ReadyBoost, because it's apparent you have no idea what it is, or what it does.

RE: Vista
By giantpandaman2 on 2/20/2007 7:14:47 PM , Rating: 2

RAM is part of the picture because Vista caches whatever it can.

Perhaps ya'll should look at the real world effects of upgrades rather than just read tech papers.

RE: Vista
By IcY18 on 2/20/2007 8:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
No RAM has nothing to do with ReadyBoost, maybe you should do some reading before actually running your mouth. ReadyBboost is for the sole purpose of turning your computer on faster. RAM is volatile, and for a refresher it means that every time you turn your computer off all information stored in RAM will be lost. So thats why using flash memory can be used as its obviously not volatile and is much faster when loading up the OS vs. a hard drive.

The other feature you might be confused with is SuperFetch, in this case duh, more ram is always better than flash memory, but for Readyboost ram has nothing to do with it

RE: Vista
By giantpandaman2 on 2/20/2007 8:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you might try to understand that I was talking about how the upgrades affected performance rather than how specifically the different technologies worked. And, please, you're going to blow a load of money to increase boot time by a few seconds? Vista already boots quite fast. I guess people really do like to waste money.

RE: Vista
By InsaneScientist on 2/21/2007 2:41:05 AM , Rating: 3
Oy vey....

ReadyBoost works in conjunction with SuperFetch.

SuperFetch is designed to cache programs (and whatever else) in memory before they're needed, thus compensating for the fact that, as you said, RAM is volatile.

ReadyBoost simply gives Vista another place to stash that cached data. Since flash memory has such low access times, reading data off of a flash drive can be better than reading it off the Hard Drive.

So, while it is true that RAM has nothing to do with how ReadyBoost works, obviously it's much faster for SuperFetch to cache to your system memory and only then to the flash drive, so having more RAM in your system dramatically reduces the need for ReadyBoost.

More RAM will always have far more effect on your system's performance than ReadyBoost could hope to attain. The only reason that ReadyBoost makes sense is that most people already have a flash drive kicking around.
If you're going to actually spend money, though, it's far better to put your money into more RAM. Even if you can't get as much RAM as you could flash memory for the same price, the sheer speed differential more than makes up for it.

RE: Vista
By mindless1 on 2/22/2007 2:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
The only reason Readyboost makes sense is that MS thinks people are too stupid to upgrade their system memory, plugging in a USB memory drive is a stop-gap measure for the typical budget PCs that sell in highest volumes - but with less memory to meet those low price points.

RE: Vista
By mindless1 on 2/22/2007 2:44:38 AM , Rating: 2
You would do well to think a bit, about how it's only faster relative to small accesses to a HDD, things that can be entirely offset with ample memory and a typical filecache.

YOu will have a faster system WITHOUT ReadyBoost, if you have ample memory and the system is tweaked to prevent all these nonsensical pseudo-features from slowing things down. Vista like it's predecessors is designed to run on slower systems and assumes problems, to the detriment of a system that (would've) worked well.

RE: Vista
By crazydrummer4562 on 2/20/2007 9:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
These cards are probably going to cost a lot more than just getting a new stick of RAM.

RE: Vista
By mindless1 on 2/22/2007 2:35:08 AM , Rating: 2
Can anyone say that if you want best memory subsystem performance you'd be foolish to use Vista?

It's slower for a reason and that reason is the bloat.
Just say no to bloated OS, it's not going to get any better with future OS otherwise, it will just cost you more to keep doing the same things you always had.

"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesFree Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM
Top 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki