User avatar
LitterBugs
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:49 am

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:40 pm

I have both the 16GB and 32GB Samsung Pro cards... The 32GB has slightly better performance, but the difference is hardly detectable in real use.

Cheers!
LitterBugs

User avatar
Marty
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:39 pm

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:24 pm

guilhermino wrote:Of course that if you align the partition to the flash erase block size you will get even better performance.
How would you do that?

jdb
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:37 pm

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:32 pm

Marty wrote:
guilhermino wrote:Of course that if you align the partition to the flash erase block size you will get even better performance.
How would you do that?
Guess.

While in the spec is the requirement for specifying the minimum unit of size that can be erased (note that this is independent of read/write commands - it's a SD-specific command to erase the block) there's no guarantee that the minimum erase size is equal or larger to the underlying flash page size. Flash pages need to be copied, erased and re-written if they have more than a certain number of writes committed to them.

If you align partitions to the flash erase boundary (usually of the order of 128KiB) then in theory you get better performance, as individual 4k filesystem blocks will never cross a page boundary and large powers-of-two of these blocks will also never cross an page boundary. This is certainly true for SSDs, but may not hold true for SD cards.

SD cards can do clever things like operate the first N blocks from an SLC area of flash - which is faster and typically has smaller erase block sizes, or precondition their wear levelling algorithms to expect lots of read/modify/write activity to the first segment of the card (where on a FAT32 card would be the file allocation table).

The only way to detect that sort of optimisation would be to do bounded random read/write cycles across the entire storage medium. If the first 16MiB is noticeably faster than the rest then you can assume that certain "optimisations" based on expected usage patterns exist.
Rockets are loud.
https://astro-pi.org

guilhermino
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:05 pm

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:27 pm

To align a card to the flash erase block size you merely have to first find the erase block size using a utility like "flashbench" mentioned here even by its author ( the info supplied with the utility is quite enough to compile and use, mind you though that it is a linux utility, I haven't found nothing similar for windows ). With that done all that is left to do is to make the start of the partition to start exactly at the erase block size ( if for example the erase block size is 8MiB, the rule for most modern cards, like the SAMSUNG Evo I've mentioned here before for example, you just have to divide 8MiB ( 8*1024*1024 bytes / 512 bytes ) to obtain the number of 512 byte blocks ( 16384 ) that you will put at the start of the partition when creating , that's aligning the partition ).
I would recommend reading the links I've posted about this matter if you need a better understanding of this.

honzik
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:16 am

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Fri Mar 27, 2015 7:26 am

* ADATA 16GB class 4 microSDHC
Image
Image
* SAMSUNG EVO 16GB class 10 UHS-I microSDHC
Image
Image
* SANDISK Extreme Pro 8GB class 10 UHS-I microSDHC
Image
Image

dom
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 5288
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Fri Mar 27, 2015 3:02 pm

honzik wrote:* ADATA 16GB class 4 microSDHC
* SAMSUNG EVO 16GB class 10 UHS-I microSDHC
* SANDISK Extreme Pro 8GB class 10 UHS-I microSDHC
Image links give me "Forbidden"

honzik
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:16 am

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:26 am

dom wrote:
honzik wrote:* ADATA 16GB class 4 microSDHC
* SAMSUNG EVO 16GB class 10 UHS-I microSDHC
* SANDISK Extreme Pro 8GB class 10 UHS-I microSDHC
Image links give me "Forbidden"
fixed

ppumkin
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 10:22 pm

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:40 pm

I just purchased two Samsung EVO's as they are the best value to speed combination.

My test results are completely different than the ones posted here.

May it be because because I am using a MicroSD to SD converter? My Seq and 512 are half of what was reported here but interestingly 4K write is more than double.. the rest is worse though.

I am using a built in SD Card reader on a Dell Latitude Windows 7 x64bit (standard crystal benchmark x64)

5 Cycles - 50MB

Samsung EVO 16GB

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 4.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 22.520 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 12.658 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 6.619 MB/s [ 1616.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 1.854 MB/s [ 452.6 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 5.872 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 14.046 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 6.480 MB/s [ 1582.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 1.821 MB/s [ 444.6 IOPS]

Test : 50 MiB [E: 0.0% (0.0/14.9 GiB)] (x5)
Date : 2015/06/08 13:31:51
OS : Windows 7 Professional SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

For Comparison I took an Kingston 8GB Class 10 I use for my Camera.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 4.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 19.584 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 9.409 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 5.334 MB/s [ 1302.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 0.299 MB/s [ 73.0 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 21.394 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 10.065 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 5.408 MB/s [ 1320.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 0.294 MB/s [ 71.8 IOPS]

Test : 50 MiB [E: 0.0% (0.2/7592.0 MiB)] (x5)
Date : 2015/06/08 13:38:12
OS : Windows 7 Professional SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)


Is it possible the build in card reader can only handle ~20MB/s maximum but why would sequential write on the Samsung EVO only be 12MB/s (instead of, if capped at 20MB/s but really should be near 40MB/s)? Or am I using the incorrect version of the benchmar tool. The green icons are arrange. Seq Q32T1, 4K, Seq, 4K instead of SEQ 512, 512K, 4K, 4K QD32


-EDIT
I found 3.03 as you are using here and these are the results.. not much better? (Via MicroSD card to SD card in Dell)

On the back of the sdcard its printed. MB-MP08D MBMPAGVDDDCW-P MADE IN KOREA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 23.792 MB/s
Sequential Write : 13.944 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 23.492 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 17.983 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 6.162 MB/s [ 1504.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.604 MB/s [ 391.6 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 6.167 MB/s [ 1505.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 1.718 MB/s [ 419.4 IOPS]

Test : 50 MB [E: 0.0% (0.0/7535.0 MB)] (x5)
Date : 2015/06/08 14:13:00
OS : Windows 7 Professional SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

User avatar
rpdom
Posts: 14770
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 5:17 am
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, UK

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:38 pm

ppumkin wrote:I just purchased two Samsung EVO's as they are the best value to speed combination.

My test results are completely different than the ones posted here.

May it be because because I am using a MicroSD to SD converter?
I doubt it. The adaptors are purely passive, there are no electronics in them at all, just direct connections from the micro card pins to the full-sized connector.

ppumkin
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 10:22 pm

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:00 am

So are they fakes? Should be well in the 40MB/s for SEQ. The 4K bits are OK but still fall behind the test done a few posts back... So I am unsure of the results.
rpdom wrote:
ppumkin wrote:I just purchased two Samsung EVO's as they are the best value to speed combination.

My test results are completely different than the ones posted here.

May it be because because I am using a MicroSD to SD converter?
I doubt it. The adaptors are purely passive, there are no electronics in them at all, just direct connections from the micro card pins to the full-sized connector.

kevreeduk
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 9:54 pm

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Sun Jun 14, 2015 9:57 pm

These are the results I got through a Polaroid USB => SD adaptor plugged into a powered USB2 Hub:

Code: Select all

Class 6 -=- 8GB NOOBS card purchased from RS Components (UK)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 4.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

   Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) :    17.824 MB/s
  Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) :     5.216 MB/s
  Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     3.327 MB/s [   812.3 IOPS]
 Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.570 MB/s [   139.2 IOPS]
         Sequential Read (T= 1) :     3.973 MB/s
        Sequential Write (T= 1) :     2.936 MB/s
   Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     1.846 MB/s [   450.7 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     0.568 MB/s [   138.7 IOPS]

  Test : 50 MiB [H: 91.2% (744.3/816.4 MiB)] (x2)
  Date : 2015/06/14 22:32:56
    OS : Windows 7 Professional SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
  


Class 10 -=- 32GB SanDisk Ultra MicroSDHC UHS-1 purchased fron Tesco (UK)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 4.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

   Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) :    17.825 MB/s
  Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) :    15.984 MB/s
  Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     3.235 MB/s [   789.8 IOPS]
 Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     1.085 MB/s [   264.9 IOPS]
         Sequential Read (T= 1) :    17.197 MB/s
        Sequential Write (T= 1) :    15.935 MB/s
   Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     1.904 MB/s [   464.8 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     0.946 MB/s [   231.0 IOPS]

  Test : 50 MiB [H: 0.0% (0.0/28.8 GiB)] (x2)
  Date : 2015/06/14 22:38:35
    OS : Windows 7 Professional SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
  

bluenote
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:25 am

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:39 pm

ppumkin wrote:So are they fakes? Should be well in the 40MB/s for SEQ. The 4K bits are OK but still fall behind the test done a few posts back... So I am unsure of the results.
rpdom wrote:
ppumkin wrote:I just purchased two Samsung EVO's as they are the best value to speed combination.

My test results are completely different than the ones posted here.

May it be because because I am using a MicroSD to SD converter?
I doubt it. The adaptors are purely passive, there are no electronics in them at all, just direct connections from the micro card pins to the full-sized connector.
Where did you buy from? There are certainly samsung evo fakes, I got some. But they were fake in the sense of, 8gb cards formatted to show 16gb. (And probably not samsung at all, who knows)

feklee
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:10 am

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:16 am

On the web site is written: "We recommend buying the Raspberry Pi SD card; this is an 8GB class 6 microSD card (with a full-size SD adaptor) that outperforms almost all other SD cards on the market and is a good value solution."

Is that still the case?

I care about performance for random access operations, such as when compiling software on the pi. I don't care about the value part.

jonoiv
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:08 pm

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:19 pm

Hello.

This video is good for helping to confirm you have a fake EVO card or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVJQVuEReFM

Has anyone tried the EVO+ (plus) card? If anyone has one, can they post a the results please, either from the Pi (any model) or a laptop/pc
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/64GB-Samsung- ... 5d5bd05ed3

Xarlith
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:23 am

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:34 am

I bought a new card after my 16GB EVO died after 6 months of usage. I've run some benches and here are the results:

Samsung MicroSDHC 16GB PRO (MB-MG16DA/EU)

Code: Select all

	Command line used: ./iozone -e -I -a -s 100M -r 4k -r 512k -r 16M -i 0 -i 1 -i 2
                                                              random    random                                         
              kB  reclen    write  rewrite    read    reread    read     write     
          102400       4     2109     2295     8170     8074     8022     1421                                                          
          102400     512    17973    18055    18895    18853    18850    18051                                                          
          102400   16384    18251    18253    19049    19047    19049    18260 

Code: Select all

./flash-bench 
Using test file flash-bench.tmp (using all 512MB).

Benchmark: Sequential read  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
512.0MB processed in 29.29s (17.48MB/s), CPU: user 0.06%, sys 1.62%
Benchmark: Sequential write  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
512.0MB processed in 38.19s (13.41MB/s), CPU: user 0.06%, sys 1.99%
Benchmark: Random read  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
358.3MB processed in 60.06s (5.96MB/s), CPU: user 0.03%, sys 1.95%
Benchmark: Random write  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
219.3MB processed in 117.65s (1.86MB/s), CPU: user 0.01%, sys 0.37%
Hope this one will last longer.

tpylkko
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:21 pm

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Thu Oct 01, 2015 7:50 am

I noticed that while the Samsung Pro version is much more expensive, it comes with a 10 year waranty. I wonder if that means that it would really last 10 years if written to and read from on a daily basis by a linux distro?

fishxz
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:27 pm

the sd card with noobs preinstalled:

Code: Select all

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.0.2 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

   Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
  Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
  Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     6.678 MB/s [  1630.4 IOPS]
 Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     1.806 MB/s [   440.9 IOPS]
         Sequential Read (T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
        Sequential Write (T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
   Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     6.524 MB/s [  1592.8 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     1.741 MB/s [   425.0 IOPS]

  Test : 50 MiB [E: 41.1% (105.0/255.7 MiB)] (x5)  [Interval=5 sec]
  Date : 2015/10/05 17:25:39
    OS : Windows 10  [10.0 Build 10240] (x64)
sick performance compared to all my other sd card, where i dont even remember the brands.

Code: Select all

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.0.2 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

   Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
  Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
  Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     4.240 MB/s [  1035.2 IOPS]
 Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.318 MB/s [    77.6 IOPS]
         Sequential Read (T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
        Sequential Write (T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
   Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     3.845 MB/s [   938.7 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     0.341 MB/s [    83.3 IOPS]

  Test : 50 MiB [E: 41.0% (104.8/255.7 MiB)] (x5)  [Interval=5 sec]
  Date : 2015/10/05 17:21:14
    OS : Windows 10  [10.0 Build 10240] (x64)

Code: Select all

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.0.2 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

   Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
  Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
  Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     3.791 MB/s [   925.5 IOPS]
 Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.892 MB/s [   217.8 IOPS]
         Sequential Read (T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
        Sequential Write (T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
   Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     3.692 MB/s [   901.4 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     0.888 MB/s [   216.8 IOPS]

  Test : 50 MiB [E: 21.1% (24.1/114.0 MiB)] (x5)  [Interval=5 sec]
  Date : 2015/10/05 17:17:33
    OS : Windows 10  [10.0 Build 10240] (x64)
 

Code: Select all

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.0.2 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

   Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) :    18.271 MB/s
  Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) :    10.695 MB/s
  Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     3.041 MB/s [   742.4 IOPS]
 Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.026 MB/s [     6.3 IOPS]
         Sequential Read (T= 1) :    18.246 MB/s
        Sequential Write (T= 1) :    10.486 MB/s
   Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     2.337 MB/s [   570.6 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     0.013 MB/s [     3.2 IOPS]

  Test : 50 MiB [E: 46.5% (119.0/255.7 MiB)] (x5)  [Interval=5 sec]
  Date : 2015/10/05 17:09:35
    OS : Windows 10  [10.0 Build 10240] (x64)
another samsung 16gb sdhc

Code: Select all

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.0.2 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

   Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
  Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
  Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     3.444 MB/s [   840.8 IOPS]
 Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :     0.027 MB/s [     6.6 IOPS]
         Sequential Read (T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
        Sequential Write (T= 1) :     0.000 MB/s
   Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     3.207 MB/s [   783.0 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :     0.021 MB/s [     5.1 IOPS]

  Test : 50 MiB [E: 41.0% (104.8/255.7 MiB)] (x5)  [Interval=5 sec]
  Date : 2015/10/05 17:36:49
    OS : Windows 10  [10.0 Build 10240] (x64)
  

User avatar
MartinPi
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Wed May 25, 2016 5:41 pm

LitterBugs wrote:Been testing a variety of cards and my best card so far is a Samsung Pro 32GB card. Results from Pi2 and PI B+ are posted below. Pi2 consistently has better results than the B+ for every card tested. Card was on sale for $19 us when I bought it.

http://www.microcenter.com/product/4325 ... th_Adapter

Code: Select all

Raspberry Pi2
Using test file flash-bench.tmp (using all 512MB).
Benchmark: Sequential read  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
512.0MB processed in 29.77s (17.20MB/s), CPU: user 0.12%, sys 1.88%
Benchmark: Sequential write  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
512.0MB processed in 30.01s (17.06MB/s), CPU: user 0.10%, sys 2.81%
Benchmark: Random read  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
314.9MB processed in 60.04s (5.24MB/s), CPU: user 0.04%, sys 2.94%
Benchmark: Random write  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
347.1MB processed in 116.16s (2.99MB/s), CPU: user 0.02%, sys 0.71%

Raspberry Pi B+
Using test file flash-bench.tmp (using all 512MB).
Benchmark: Sequential read  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
512.0MB processed in 30.30s (16.90MB/s), CPU: user 0.58%, sys 12.80%
Benchmark: Sequential write  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
512.0MB processed in 31.95s (16.03MB/s), CPU: user 0.99%, sys 26.27%
Benchmark: Random read  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
254.4MB processed in 60.06s (4.24MB/s), CPU: user 0.73%, sys 21.99%
Benchmark: Random write  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
185.2MB processed in 88.64s (2.09MB/s), CPU: user 0.16%, sys 4.46%
Karl

Hackin since the 70's, new to PI
How is the Pro going in your Pi? About to purchase :) Is it speedy!
Raspberry Pi 3 32GB with 32-inch Monitor
Rasberry Pi Zero 32GB

User avatar
MartyMacGyver
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:37 am

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Wed May 25, 2016 5:52 pm

MartinPi wrote:How is the Pro going in your Pi? About to purchase :) Is it speedy!
Based on http://www.jeffgeerling.com/blogs/jeff- ... crosd-card I went with the Samsung EVO+ 32GB for my Pi3's. I like that it has much better overall performance (particularly random R/W speeds for smaller file sizes) than the Sandisk ones I've been using til now.

User avatar
MartinPi
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Wed May 25, 2016 5:55 pm

MartyMacGyver wrote:
MartinPi wrote:How is the Pro going in your Pi? About to purchase :) Is it speedy!
Based on http://www.jeffgeerling.com/blogs/jeff- ... crosd-card I went with the Samsung EVO+ 32GB for my Pi3's. I like that it has much better overall performance (particularly random R/W speeds for smaller file sizes) than the Sandisk ones I've been using til now.
Really not sure if I should go for the Pro or the Evo+.
Raspberry Pi 3 32GB with 32-inch Monitor
Rasberry Pi Zero 32GB

User avatar
MartinPi
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Wed May 25, 2016 5:56 pm

MartyMacGyver wrote:
MartinPi wrote:How is the Pro going in your Pi? About to purchase :) Is it speedy!
Based on http://www.jeffgeerling.com/blogs/jeff- ... crosd-card I went with the Samsung EVO+ 32GB for my Pi3's. I like that it has much better overall performance (particularly random R/W speeds for smaller file sizes) than the Sandisk ones I've been using til now.
Would the difference even be noticeable between the Evo+ and the pro?
Raspberry Pi 3 32GB with 32-inch Monitor
Rasberry Pi Zero 32GB

User avatar
MartyMacGyver
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:37 am

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Wed May 25, 2016 6:13 pm

MartinPi wrote:
MartyMacGyver wrote:
MartinPi wrote:How is the Pro going in your Pi? About to purchase :) Is it speedy!
Based on http://www.jeffgeerling.com/blogs/jeff- ... crosd-card I went with the Samsung EVO+ 32GB for my Pi3's. I like that it has much better overall performance (particularly random R/W speeds for smaller file sizes) than the Sandisk ones I've been using til now.
Would the difference even be noticeable between the Evo+ and the pro?
It depends - if you're doing lots of small writes, the Evo+ ought to outperform the Pro twofold and then some. Compiling code is one place that comes into play.

User avatar
MartinPi
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Wed May 25, 2016 6:22 pm

MartyMacGyver wrote:
MartinPi wrote:How is the Pro going in your Pi? About to purchase :) Is it speedy!
Based on http://www.jeffgeerling.com/blogs/jeff- ... crosd-card I went with the Samsung EVO+ 32GB for my Pi3's. I like that it has much better overall performance (particularly random R/W speeds for smaller file sizes) than the Sandisk ones I've been using til now.

It depends - if you're doing lots of small writes, the Evo+ ought to outperform the Pro twofold and then some. Compiling code is one place that comes into play.
My use case is using it as a desktop computer; and I'm just wanting the speed of booting up, running and installing applications. I may also try Ubuntu Mate. What would you recommend for these tasks; the Pro or the Evo +?
Raspberry Pi 3 32GB with 32-inch Monitor
Rasberry Pi Zero 32GB

User avatar
MartyMacGyver
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:37 am

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Wed May 25, 2016 7:40 pm

I went with the EVO+ based on the benchmarks for both of my Pi3s. I'm disappointed in the performance of all microSD cards, especially on the 4K R/W side of the equation... but the EVO+ seems to have a good balance of performance characteristics - it's been a particularly noticeable improvement on small file I/O with some sacrifice on the top end. For $10-12 each it was a low-risk investment.

mikerr
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:46 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website

Re: SD Card Benchmarks

Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:33 pm

This Samsung Pro really is an amazing card...

This is the 64GB version "Samsung Pro 64GB"

Image

Code: Select all

sudo ./flash-bench
Using test file flash-bench.tmp (using all 512MB).
Benchmark: Sequential read  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
512.0MB processed in 25.54s (20.05MB/s), CPU: user 0.04%, sys 1.40%
Benchmark: Sequential write  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
512.0MB processed in 28.02s (18.28MB/s), CPU: user 0.10%, sys 2.52%
Benchmark: Random read  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
408.3MB processed in 60.02s (6.80MB/s), CPU: user 0.07%, sys 2.08%
Benchmark: Random write  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
402.6MB processed in 114.08s (3.53MB/s), CPU: user 0.03%, sys 0.64%
with sd overlock;

Code: Select all

dtoverlay=sdhost,overclock_50=100

Code: Select all

sudo ./flash-bench
Using test file flash-bench.tmp (using all 512MB).
Benchmark: Sequential read  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
512.0MB processed in 15.39s (33.26MB/s), CPU: user 0.15%, sys 2.22%
Benchmark: Sequential write  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
512.0MB processed in 19.02s (26.92MB/s), CPU: user 0.19%, sys 4.12%
Benchmark: Random read  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
512.0MB processed in 53.56s (9.56MB/s), CPU: user 0.01%, sys 2.61%
Benchmark: Random write  Limits: Total size: 512MB Duration: 60s
370.6MB processed in 102.99s (3.60MB/s), CPU: user 0.02%, sys 0.67%
It reduces my win32diskimager times from 5 minutes for Raspbian Jessie (4GB) with a Samsung Ultra:

Image

down to under a minute !

Image

£21 for a 64GB @ amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00J2C87T8
Android app - Raspi Card Imager - download and image SD cards - No PC required !

Return to “General discussion”