672
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
672 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
58691 readers
3300 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I am slightly confused why they use UHS-I instead of UHS-II (or even UHS-III) for such a big capacity. Seems like people needing so much capacity probably write a lot of data in a short time. UHS-II is 3 times quicker.
Then again maybe they are aiming for devices that can't even run UHS-II
Could be a trade-off issue. They can get capacity or speed but not both yet.
Or it's cost-prohibitive ATM. As in, they could get both, but you'd pay a ton for it.
I can imagine this being useful for cases where you write a lot of data over a longer time period. Think CCTV (with low-medium resolution). You can keep a sizeable archive locally and never have to swap cards
Oh yeah cctv could be a good option indeed.
I assume larger capacity means longer endurance, too, since you're not constantly rewriting the same cells.
It's SanDisk, I expect the opposite - that every cell increases the volatility and chance of catastrophic failure.