"To any who say DVD9is faster; Blu-ray (IE subrosian)
Your logic is flawed, DVD9 is is not faster than Blu-ray
Quote from another site WITH proof:
2x Blu-ray Drive (72Mbps(9MB/s))
Single Layer (2x CLV) - Constant Linear Velocity (Same speed across entire disk)
Double Layer - Couldn't find any data but no games have been released on a double layer yet.
Entire Blu-ray Disk is read at 9MB/s.
12x DVD-Rom Drive SL (9.25MB/S-15.85MB/s(AVG ~8x(10.57MB/s) DL (4.36MB/s-10.57MB/s(AVG ~6x(7.93MB/s)
SL(DVD-5) 12x Max (5-12x Full CAV) - Constant Angular Velocity (Speed Varies from edge to edge)
DL(DVD-9) 8x Max (3.3-8x Full CAV) - Constant Angular Velocity (Speed Varies from edge to edge)
SL DVD is 1.57MB/s faster SL Blu-ray
DL DVD is 1.07MB/s slower than SL Blu-ray
Majority of 360 games are on DVD-9.
Sources:
Hitachi 12x DVD-Rom Faq (Page 2)
http://www.hitachi.us/supportingdocs/support/manuals/gd7500,0.pdf#search=%22Hitachi%2012x%20dvd%20read%20speed%22
What is DVD?
http://www.videohelp.com/dvd
Blu-ray.com Blu-ray FAQ
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/
Wikipedia - Constant Linear Velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_linear_velocity
Wikipedia - Constant Angular Velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_angular_velocity
If you can't understand this Data and WHY this nulls your argument, then you shouldn't be giving any TECHNICAL advice on this (or any other) forum."
laez
That's all well and good, but you've *oversimplified* the technical issue, and taken an extremely hostile tone towards me for absolutley no reason. In practice accessing the 2nd layer on a DL-DVD on the 360 is also slower. However, you're forgettig that the game is *mastered*. The developers optimize the placement of data on the disc, so that frequently accessed information (such as textures) is stored on the outer rim, with rarely accessed data located further in on the disc.
This, combined with moving certain data to the hard drive cache, allows the 360 to have rather rapid load times. Unfortunately for Sony, the PS3 has to do the same thing in order to get acceptable load times, somewhat defeating the PS3's claimed edge. Also, when Blu-Ray pushes towards being dual-layered, it will run into the same problems, read speeds affected by the transistion between layers.
In practice though, DVD9 read speeds are rapid, as no data is stored on the slower inner part of the disc, and the combination of properly placed data on the outer edge with hard drive caching allows rapid access to data. Of course, when we remove the hard drive, the 360s load times are crippled, which is why developers were so infuriated at Microsoft for the core model, and some future games will not work with the core model (period).
We'll see though - if we're talking about Blu-Ray its performance advantage is questionable at best, and in practice (not pure numbers on paper) DVD9 has worked quite well for developers. The technology that will replace them both is quite honestly the hard drive, look to other statements and we begin to see Blu-Ray more as a marketing move than anything for Sony, or at least a step taken far too early in the game.
One of the strongest features for keeping load times short on the PS3 has been the standardization of the hard drive *not* the use of Blu-Ray discs, which, ounce for ounce (outer edge of DVD9 versus Blu-Ray disc) do not offer enough performance to justify their higher price to a publisher, unless Sony can offer them a large market.
The PS3's biggest weakness was in the business side, an area I do happen to have a deal of expertise in. When you release a product at the top of the price curve, a year after the competition, lose a large portion of your target market to a $250 competitor, and require developers to learn to work with complex new technology, you have a huge problem on your hands. Sony's fighting their way down the price curve tooth-and-nail, but along the way it's sacrificing value-added features (PS2 backwards-compatibility) and bleeding money.
Log in to comment