CompactFlash 5.0 specification promises faster speeds, crazy 'theoretical' storage
By Donald Melanson 
posted Feb 22nd 2010 3:51PM
posted Feb 22nd 2010 3:51PM
If there's one thing that sounds more impressive than actual capabilities, it's theoretical capabilities -- and it looks like the CompactFlash Association has come through on both counts with its new CF5.0 specifications. While any actual cards or cameras supporting the spec are still a ways off, the new standard does pave the way for 48-bit addressing (up from 28-bit), along with an increased data transfer unit size of 32MB/s (up from 128KB/s) and, best of all, a theoretical maximum capacity of 144 petabytes (up from a mere 137GB with the current spec). Other advancements include a so-called "Video Performance Guarantee" aimed at professional video cameras, and a new Interface Electrical Specification that complies better with the ATA standard, and promises to allow for "easier and better" card design.
but are the cards smaller? i always felt like CF cards were veritable giants in both size and weight when compared to, say SD or XD.
@spasewalkr Yeah and they never had crazy speeds either.
@spasewalkr I meant storage.
@spasewalkr The size is designed to make the cards backwards compatible. Old cards work in new devices, and most new cards work (although not as well) in old devices. Additionally, it allows compatibility with ATA standards, making adapters easier to create. It also provides increased durability, as the conductors are protected inside the card.
As for the speed, I would assume this is the minimum speed, since many current cards are capable of operating well beyond this speed if the processor in the camera can keep up.
@Cheesus Crust
Actually, capacity is the last thing that Compact Flash has going for it. CF has reached a still-too-expensive 64GB while SD remains at a reasonably-priced 32GB.
And while SD and MicroSD have become the general standard for consumer devices, CF cards are still plenty small to fit into higher-level gear.
@limabird Durability is debateable since the conductors in the card are recessed but the conductors in the card SLOT are rather prominent and very fragile (pins instead of pads). Take it from someone who has paid for the slot to be replaced in a digital camera...
@ColonelKernel
Who Charges The Hight Prices The Produces Of The Products. So When They Make Enough Money On The 32Gb They Reduce that price and the 64gb price :) Bastards:)
@spasewalkr: I thought the same thing until I got a Canon 5D, and hesitated on that purchase just because of the CF cards. I am a convert now - they aren't THAT much bigger, and it's not like you are going to carry around a couple of dozen of the cards anyway. Maybe 1 or 2 spares if you are going on a long trip and need insurance.
At about 16 MB per photo on the 5D with an 8GB card, 2 of them got me through 4 weeks trekking in Nepal where if you stumble and accidentally trip the shutter you get an amazing picture.
I wish we could get an equally rediclious 'theoretical transfer rate', because at a measly 32MB/s would take just over 142.5 years to fill a 144 PB chip. Even by todays standards 32 MB/s seems like it's falling behind. Working with any devise that has over a Petabyte of memory I'd HOPE we could achieve a transfer rate of ateast 1TB/s
144 Petabytes on a card!? Sign me up to this theoretical madness.
@Cydoniac
Which at 32 MB/s transfer will only take you the rest of your adult life.
@Cydoniac
Well, that's just the maximum addressable space when given 48 bit addressing. It's kind of silly, but at least they won't have to update it for a reaaaaaaaly long time :)
@Dante of the Inferno 143 years to be exact.
Holy hard drives, Batman!
144PB?!?!?!?
Uhhhh Who is going to put that into 3,000 MP camera and take a few billion pictures to fill it up?(yes I know my math is waaaaaaaaaaaay off)
@Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi
Every rich high school teen taking suggestive pictures of themselves, that's who.
@Kyle Krcmaric
Hello Myspace.
dummy question but how this will affect digital cameras ?
@Beroz MOR PIXELZZZ
It must be mistaken by the reporter who wrote it or the company hype.
1), there are no any single drive in market break through Tera-bytes boundary nor any trans-flash ever exceed 10 Gigabytes i singe chip.
With current nano-technology, we still a long way to go reach near
Tera in 2.5 HD. I think these people from Flash Drive is so desperate will tell big lie as marketing strategy. They should be investigated and charge if not mistaken by reporter but rather hype for financial purpose.
@pasta That's why it's stated as theoretical - everyone knows we aren't going to see those kinds of capacities for a decade or two.
Holy Schnikeys! Of course there is no practical use for 144 PB. Unless you want to download the internetzzz.
This:
"along with an increased data transfer unit size of 32MB/s (up from 128KB/s)"
...makes no sense.
The "size" of a data transfer "unit" is not measured by a per-second chunk of data. We're talking size of the unit, not speed of the transfer. You're confusing apples with oranges.
Therefore, the transfer rate on CF5.0 cards would not be a mere 32 MB/s. As I'm sure you're well aware, today's UDMA CF cards can already transfer at rates upward of 100 MB/s.
Talking speed, one of these cards would likely be transferring data in the tens of GB/s.
@rk0 It's referring to the base unit speed, ie, how fast 1x is defined.
@rk0
So these tiny cards will have read/write speeds as fast as a fast SSD?
When the Canon Rebel's went to SD memory I figured that pretty much signaled the death knell for CF; yeah the EOS is still using it but for how much longer? I remember at one point when both formats were popular folks went on and on about how much more "durable" CF was, but honestly I've never had a SD card fail and I don't take particularly good care of them. The only thing I have left that uses CF is an old Canon D30 (not 30D!), and I'm happy that my new Rebel t1i uses SD so I only have to have one format anymore.
Ya well theoretical talk is just marketing bullshit. Keep in mind the max limit for an SDHC card is 2TB however the Secure Digital Association 2.00 specification limits the maximum size to 32GB...then they'll spring a new format on you just to milk some more cash from you wallet. Come on this is a business...if this spec, EVER lives up to the hype and gives you petabytes of data on a single card, I'll eat dogshit...