this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
693 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

59374 readers
7248 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/39437325

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 34 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I assume larger capacity means longer endurance, too, since you're not constantly rewriting the same cells.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

It's SanDisk, I expect the opposite - that every cell increases the volatility and chance of catastrophic failure.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)