I disagree with your interpretation... I'd really rather not dust off my old statistics book... I personally use the lowest rated Kingston CF card and am very happy with it. I'm not out to run the fastest possible system, and I'm not out to convince you of anything at all. However, you have discounted informed reasoning as guesses, and misinterpreted gathered data to preserve your own preconceptions. If you really want to stick with a spinning platter or a SATA SSD or something else, I suggest you go for it. You don't need to justify or rationalize your decision to us.
There is no need to get so flustered over this. I apologize for having clearly upset you, but my intention was not to anger anyone. Such has never been my intention through all the years I have posted in this excellent forum.
Nevertheless, I stand by what I have said about the need for comparative benchmarks. I also stand by my thanks which I extended to you for providing such benchmark data. You did not have to do that, but you kindly did so. Indeed, I am truly humbled by the amount of time you clearly spend on that dedicated web page for the results. Again, I wish to thank you for that. No doubt others appreciate your efforts as well, even though they have not yet offered you their thanks yet.
But just because one or two among us is "satisfied with the performance of a low end CF card" does not mean we all must follow suit and be satisfied with that. I don't say this to upset you at all. I state it merely as a fact. Some are satisfied with the 16MHz processor in a stock SE/30. I have a 50MHz DiiMO 030 in mine. It's still an SE/30 running 68k software, upgraded yet in a largely stock condition. I simply say this to point out that the SE/30 allows for us to add various things to it to make it faster, and no, I am not talking about transforming it into a G4 or Intel Mac Mini either. I am talking about taking a stock Mac and upgrading it such that it can continue to operate as it was originally intended (to run 68k software natively on the CPU), but at faster speeds. That is what this thread is all about, but of course the "flash drive" discussion extends to Mac other than the SE/30 as well.
Such that we can all make "better informed decisions" I suggested some benchmarks in this thread. Then for whatever reason, the harsh words began. Perhaps some of you are hurt that I trust in benchmarks more than personal experience or educated guesses (however good those guesses may be). But I've not been attacked like this in other threads, so I am rather confused by all the harshness. Again, if I have offended, I apologize.
But I must stand by my original call for benchmarks, because such data is helpful in determining performance. And quite frankly, the more benchmarking data we can compile, the more easy it will be to select an appropriate flash drive solution for our vintage Mac, in accordance with our individual needs on performance.
Some seek the lowest cost solution. I seek a low cost solution, yet with the best performance possible. I personally want to know, without a shadow of a doubt, that the flash drive solution I am going to pay money for, for use in my vintage Mac, is going to be FASTER (in most situations/tests) than the 7200rpm spinning platter drive I currently have installed. The only way to know which is the best is to have a robust number of comparative benchmarks.
If such benchmarks were utterly irrelevant, then it would not have been necessary for Macworld/Mac User magazine to offer them all these years, nor would Macworld today need to use their Speedmark testing. The fact is, there are many among us, myself included, who still like to see benchmarks. Right or wrong, benchmark data makes us feel better. And I personally think it helps me make a more informed purchasing decision. My main reason for even participating in this thread is because I have been in the market for a flash drive solution for my SE/30 for years, but I've not purchase yet because I've been holding out for comparative benchmarks.
From reviewing your excellent benchmark results web page, I see that the SanDisk Ultra II card is very close to the 10krpm Cheetah, which is a very fast drive to have in an SE/30, and faster than the 7200rpm IBM DGHS server drive I currently use in my SE/30. So if I dare to "guess" here (based upon what I read in your benchmarks anyway), it would probably be that even a faster card like the Extreme III or IV series may not yield much greater performance than what your benchmarks have shown. Of course, we would need to conduct a benchmark with a faster card to know for certain. But as you point it, it may be that the faster cards would not exceed the numbers shown in your Speed Info results.
So again, thank you for testing. You were very kind in doing so. I greatly appreciate it. And if others who own flash drive solutions would like to add to the benchmarks, then we all benefit as a result.