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.
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.