Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!
  • Did you order new AirTags? We've opened a dedicated AirTags forum.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
52,410
14,114



Western Digital today introduced a new 400GB SanDisk Ultra microSDXC UHS-I card, which it says is the world's highest-capacity microSD card available on the market.

The new 400GB card comes two years after the company introduced its 200GB SanDisk Ultra microSD card, with the new version doubling the storage capacity. According to Western Digital, this new milestone was achieved through leveraging proprietary memory technology, design, and production processes that allow for more bits per die.

sandiskmicrosd400gb.jpg
"Mobile devices have become the epicenter of our lives, and consumers are now accustomed to using their smartphones for anything from entertainment to business. We are collecting and sharing massive amounts of data on smartphones, drones, tablets, PCs, laptops and more. We anticipate that storage needs will only continue to grow as people continue to expect more sophisticated features on their devices and desire higher quality content," Jeff Janukowicz, research vice president, IDC. "We estimate mobile device users worldwide will install over 150 billion applications alone this year, which require a ton of memory on all of our favorite devices."
Designed for use in Android smartphones, drones, cameras, and other devices that use microSD storage, the new card can hold up to 40 hours of full HD video and it features transfer speeds of up to 100MB/s.

sandiskmicrosd400gb2.jpg

The 400GB SanDisk Ultra microSDXC UHS-I card will be available from SanDisk and other major retailers soon. It is priced at $249.99.

Article Link: SanDisk Debuts New $250 400GB MicroSD Card
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone

alexgowers

macrumors 65816
Jun 3, 2012
1,337
891
Damn! Thats a darn good price per GB. I just wish the speed was up there m.2 nvme etc. You could however use it in a camera for a very long time before needing to dump off the photos/video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 69Mustang
Comment

TrueBlou

Contributor
Sep 16, 2014
4,346
3,178
Scotland
I can see me picking one up for my Pi server, my Switch, another backup location for photos and another for programming backup and one for.... damn this is going to get expensive :D
 
Comment

Glassed Silver

macrumors 68020
Mar 10, 2007
2,096
2,561
Kassel, Germany
Hmm, can't wait to see the first reports of 800GB PSPs.

Will take forever to boot, but by God, having close to a TB of storage on a portable console of that age just makes me drool.

*Tons of slow storage.

Quite handy to archive on, it's like a small spinning drive - not great for much else. It's 100MB/s the Samsung 960 Pro variant in my MacBook Pro is 3000MB/s
Plenty fast for many things like an iTunes library, iOS device backups (those suckers are HUGE, especially if you archive some states), home videos, download folder, etc...

Just manage where you put which files.

For example: don't set your work directory in FCPX to this card.

As long as the OS and the common applications are on the SSD I think for many this could be the workable solution Apple practically forces you to go with unless you like paying high premiums for fast storage when you really only need a fraction of your storage to be fast.

Glassed Silver:ios
 
Comment

wesley96

macrumors 6502
Sep 21, 2009
342
252
I think it's leveraging technology like Quad-Level Cell(QLC), as opposed to the Triple (TLC) or double (MLC). The problem is, the higher the level the more delicate the silicon die becomes and the number of possible rewrites go plummeting down, not to mention slower.

As a rule of thumb, general number of rewrites possible are:
SLC: 100,000
MLC: 10,000
TLC: 1,000
QLC: 100

So if you have a block that gets written more than a hundred times, it's no longer writable. This is fine for archiving, but unsuitable for applications where a lot of writes occur.
 
Comment

RightMACatU

macrumors 65816
Jul 12, 2012
1,412
1,098
192.168.1.1
400GB @ 100 MB/s, how many years would it take to load it? :p
Not sure I would want this card under load for more than a half hour - I would probably melt.
 
Comment

Mildredop

macrumors 68020
Oct 14, 2013
2,450
1,501
How sad that my MacBook Pro has less capacity that this tiny memory card.

Again making you wonder whether Apple removed the SD card slot to cut off expandability, which is just pathetic but might have influenced the decision.

It's what I've always assumed. I still need an external drive with all my movies but, looking at this card makes me think Apple easily put several TBs into MacBook Pros without much problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RowellE
Comment

Rafterman

Contributor
Apr 23, 2010
2,778
2,050
400GB @ 100 MB/s, how many years would it take to load it? :p
Not sure I would want this card under load for more than a half hour - I would probably melt.

I've copied stuff to 256GB cards at 90MB for hours. No issues.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.