What is Sandisk extreme PLUS 64GB microsdxc 95/90 read write?

I found it at the store, but its not on the website.  I bought it, and while I understand R/W times vary, I’m getting 88/73for read write.  And my older card sandisk extreme plus which was 80/50 r/w could do the same file at 78/56.

is it a packaging error? sdsqxsg-064g-ancma is on the package.

Follow thread

Sorry, follow which thread? I don’t see a link. Was this posted already?

Oh I did make sure the file was large.  it’s a 4GB file I was using.  The transfer I was doing was from an internal micro card reader built into a Surface Pro 2 that has a SSD drive.  i5, 8GB RAM,win10

I also tried from my home computer using a USB 3 to ImageMate All-in-One USB 3.0 Reader.  To and from a SSD drive. i7,24GB RAM, win10.  The home computer drive I was ale to transfer the same file from SSD to another regular harddrive and the speed was 124/110 for r/w, so I know the SSD is capable of supporting the full bandwith of at least 95/90.

Still no answer?

I just bought mine about an hour ago and noticed the exact same thing. I cannot find this product on SanDisk’s website. Furthermore on amazon there seems to be a “new” and “old” version. Who knows how many versions of the exact same named sd card there are since neither of the new or old are labled as 95/90.

Also just tested it with Blackmagic Disk Speed test and all I am getting is 88 read 57 write. I really hope they do something about this becuase if not I will probably be swapping it out for the Samsung Pro Plus that gets faster writes by a long shot.

Haven’t gotten a hold of a machine with CrystalMark but I did get XBench and was able to run a few numbers. Sequencial write 4k blocks did reach 82MB/s and read 256k blocks sequencially at 79MB/s still not 95/90 that they advertise but better than what I was getting before. Those are the fastest reads and writes. The rest were slower as you can see below:

Results                      72.80
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.11.1 (15B42)
Physical RAM 8192 MB
Model MacBookPro12,1
Drive Type APPLE SD Card Reader
Disk Test 72.80

Sequential 66.30
Uncached Write      134.52      82.60 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write      70.96        40.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read      30.80         9.01 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read      157.78      79.30 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Random 80.72
Uncached Write      29.56        3.13 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write      83.13        26.61 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read      1175.57   8.33 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read      351.55      65.23 MB/sec [256K blocks]

@calif94577 wrote:

I just bought mine about an hour ago and noticed the exact same thing. I cannot find this product on SanDisk’s website. Furthermore on amazon there seems to be a “new” and “old” version. Who knows how many versions of the exact same named sd card there are since neither of the new or old are labled as 95/90.

Also I found the 95/90 on amazon, sold out of course http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-microSDXC-Adapter-SDSQXSG-064G-GN6MA/dp/B010NE3N3S One reviewer was able to run CrystalMark on it and it performs better than advertised so mine might either be a faulty one or XBench reads different. Yours might also be faulty if this members benchmark is correct.

I’m getting somewhat similar numbers with my 64GB 95/90 card. I thought the first card I got was faulty so I went to Bestbuy to exchange it for another one and the second one has the same low write speeds when benching with CDM. I have 2 one year old 64GB Extreme Plus UHS-3 (80/50 rated) cards sold and shipped by amazon that reads at the same speed and writes FASTER than the new 95/90 card.

I tested with the following hardware/software:

-Kingston FCR-HS3 USB 3.0 card reader
-Asus Z77V-Pro motherboard (using Intel USB 3.0 controller)
-Windows 7 x64
-Crystal DiskMark 3.0.3 x64
-ATTO 2.46

1 year old SDSDQX-064G-AFFP-A bought from Amazon.com rated for 80 read/50 write.

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 © 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 : 96.323 MB/s
Sequential Write : 65.149 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 64.469 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 43.180 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 9.700 MB/s [2368.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 3.098 MB/s [756.4 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 8.056 MB/s [1966.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 2.875 MB/s [701.9 IOPS]
Test : 1000 MB [N: 53.6% (31.8/59.5 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2015/11/30 20:54:11
OS : Windows 7 Enterprise SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
SanDisk Extreme+ 64GB c10/U3 uSDXC 80/50MBps

2 brand new SDSQXSG-064G-CN6MA bought from Bestbuy.ca rated for 95 read/90 write

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 © 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 : 95.804 MB/s
Sequential Write : 60.911 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 64.608 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 30.765 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 9.609 MB/s [2345.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 2.805 MB/s [684.8 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 7.958 MB/s [1942.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 2.610 MB/s [637.3 IOPS]
Test : 1000 MB [N: 0.0% (0.0/59.4 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2015/11/30 19:39:22
OS : Windows 7 Enterprise SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
SanDisk Extreme+ 64GB U3 uSDXC 95/90MB/s

ATTO doesn’t have a nice text dump like CDM, but the results are the same, it maxes out at 95 read and 60 write for the new card.

So yeah… my 1 year old 80/50 Extreme+ cards can read and write FASTER than the new 95/90 Extreme+ card.
I also tried changing the test size from 1,000MB to 100MB in CDM and the sequential read of the old card dropped from 96 to 86MB/s read but write speed remained at 65MB/s. The new card went from 96 to 95MB/s read (margin of error) and write speed remained at 60MB/s.

I don’t have another USB 3.0 card reader to test it with, but considering the old card could hit 65MB/s write consistently I don’t think the card reader is the bottleneck because if it was, then I should max out at the same 65MB/s write like the old card.

If it was just 1 new 95/90 card performing slow maybe it was just a fluke but I tested 2 brand new out of the package and since it was at Bestbuy, these aren’t fakes either. Either SanDisk made a bad batch and QA didn’t catch it or whoever was in charge of making the new packaging royally screwed up and copy/pasted the numbers from the Extreme PRO card because that is also rated at 95/90. This card should be performing very close to 1:1 ratio of read:write but it’s more like the 1.6:1 ratio of my old 80/50 cards.

I’m wondering if I should go back to Bestbuy AGAIN to return it for a refund. On the one hand, the black friday sale price made it cost the same as what I paid last year for the over achieving/under rated 80/50 card so I’m getting the similar performance for the same price. On the other hand, the product’s performance does NOT match what is on the packaging. I’m willing to give it a 5-10% margin of error, but it’s 33% slower WRITE than what is stated on the packaging. I buy these cards for the fast WRITE speed, not the read.

I found that amazon.com review mentioned earlier and that person does get 97/91 but that was a 32GB card, not the 64GB that we all have. I think I’ll try Sandisk’s online chat tomorrow and see what they have to say. I’d rather bring it back to Bestbuy.ca for a refund than pay to ship it cross-border to have it RMA’d in the USA.

1 Like

Thanks for that in depth review! Yea I hope they find out what is going on because I was originally going to buy the Samsung EVO Pro+ but then I noticed that these were on discount for the same price so I figured why not, SanDisk has a better reputation for these cards let’s do it. Starting to wonder if I sould of gotten the Samsung… Hopefully SanDisk gets back to us on this.