What's the benefit of CF?

[Ipastor]

I bought my NX60 a week ago and love it. I have a 128 mb MS and I do find it quite necessary. However, I hear all the buzz about the CF and am wondering why all the excitement, how is it better. Please inform a newbie.:p

[n2ifp]

It's cheaper, not necessarily better. More memory storage. Some already have CF cards and it does give some flexibility with some other camera makers that use CF cards.

[HairyPalms]

CF is also faster. AvantGo syncs much faster to the CF when used in Masquerading mode. Apps also load faster from it.

Also Lexar has 2gb and 4gb models out, so more storage.

Other than that it's cheaper. 512mb CF is around $150-175. 512mb MSPro is near $300 (retail prices, online is much better)

my only problem is I use WiFi alot, so if I install apps to CF, then need to browse, I lose them. So I end up leaving the 128mb MS in there anyway and keep CFs for movies and SouthPark episodes.

[kitfreak]

Originally posted by HairyPalms
CF is also faster. AvantGo syncs much faster to the CF when used in Masquerading mode. Apps also load faster from it.

Also Lexar has 2gb and 4gb models out, so more storage.

Other than that it's cheaper. 512mb CF is around $150-175. 512mb MSPro is near $300 (retail prices, online is much better)

my only problem is I use WiFi alot, so if I install apps to CF, then need to browse, I lose them. So I end up leaving the 128mb MS in there anyway and keep CFs for movies and SouthPark episodes.

HairyPalms
When you say CF is faster, are you comparing with inetrnal memory, MS, or MS-PRO? The Sony marketing blurb would have us believe that MS-PRO performance is much better than MS.

[HairyPalms]

I guess I didn't come clear on that one :)

I think CF is faster than MS regular. I don't have any Pro so I can't test it versus that. But my Lexar 256mb 4x CF chip tests out a good bit faster with vfs benchmarking.

Nothing will be as fast as the internal, sadly.

[CliePet]

re: memory speed

CF is not necessarily faster than MS - at least with the current (1.0) driver and with normal CF cards (ie. not the more expensive/faster cards).
The new driver (1.1) is supposed to be a lot faster.

---
There is an entire Forum dedicated to "Compact Flash" on this site.

Please check it for discussions on the issue of CF speed (compared to MS and MS Pro)

One recent thread:
http://www.cliesource.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15329

[Eddy]

Originally posted by CliePet
The new driver (1.1) is supposed to be a lot faster.

nice to hear some dramatic improvement about the new 1.1 driver for CF in regards to speed, since there have been many users with various brands of cards & also emphasizing how the brand of the card affects the speed.

[Dexion]

CF is not necessarily faster than MS - at least with the current (1.0) driver and with normal CF cards (ie. not the more expensive/faster cards).

Well the good part is, when your talking on a hardware level. CF cards are generally much faster than MS or MS Pro. I haven't seen actual comparisons between the 2, but given some cards out there I've seen up to 4MB/sec Write, 6MB/sec Read speeds. I'm pretty sure MS isn't up there yet.

So I'm not surprised that CF driver 1.1 would take advantage of this.

[kitfreak]

Sony are claiming a "minimum" write speed of 15 Mb/s for MS-PRO and a "Theoretical maximum" of 160Mb/s.
See this http://www.ita.sel.sony.com/support/news/mspromedia.html
It would be interesting to hear some real-World experiences of MS-PRO speed vs CF (1.1 driver + decent card) speed.

As a slight aside, this link seems to imply some problem with storing MP3s on MS-PRO. http://www.ita.sel.sony.com/support/news/msproupdate.html
But I'm sure I've read threads in this forum, where people have written of using MP3 on MS-PRO (though I may just of imagined that :rolleyes: )

[Dexion]

Sony are claiming a "minimum" write speed of 15 Mb/s for MS-PRO and a "Theoretical maximum" of 160Mb/s.

Yeah those are always unrealistic theoretical benchmarks. Besides your also overlooking the common mistake, Sony is using Mb(which is megabit) which is a huge difference. 160mb/sec= 20MB/sec(8bits=1byte). 15Mb/s is actually not a good rating with that ratio.

The ones I was posting with th CF are actual read/write benches on average.

[greg elmassian]

the only speed tests that make any sense to me in practical terms are the speed of execution of actual programs.

I have ms, ms pro and cf. The MS backup program is still faster to my cf than my expensive ms pro...

so, in this particular sense, cf is "better"

Greg

[Dexion]

I'm not surprised. CF is faster, the format has been around longer. It does have it's drawbacks, which includes its size compared to the MSpro, but I think because of its size, they can use better and faster memory.

[greg elmassian]

there's more interface lines in a cf than a ms, therefore, given the same speed of electronics put in each, the cf has a higher potential...