That explains why Extreme III is faster than Ultra II. But it doesn't
explain why the E-1, whose own interface hits 4998 KB/sec with the
Extreme III, doesn't achieve that same speed with the Ultra II. Since
the Ultra II has been shown to hit 5434 KB/sec on the 20D the Ultra II
should not be the bottleneck. I don't question the numbers but it still
doesn't make any sense to me. Sounds silly to me but might it be that
one camera is doing a write verify and the other isn't?
Chuck Norcutt
Mark Dapoz wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>
>>So, how come the E-1 only gets 3570 KB/sec from the Ultra II (also close
>>to dpreview's E-1 test) while it's able to run at 4998 KB/sec with the
>>Extreme III? If these CF cards were physical drives I'd be looking at
>>things like head motion and rotational delays to explain the
>>differences. There must be things about CF card performance that I
>>simply do not understand. Anybody know?
>
>
> To achieve the faster speeds on the newer cards they likely have introduced
> faster micro-controllers and more parallelism of the flash devices. This
> would also benefit the lower speed interfaces as long as they're not already
> fully saturated. They may also be introducing newer flash programming
> algorithms which take less time to program each word. It has been a while
> since I wrote a flash driver so I'm not up on all the latest techniques.
> -mark
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|