starcraft said:
windbane said:
It's been widely reported to be a near-filled 50GB disc, so I won't even talk further on that topic except to remind people that the Japanese voices were to be included but were not because of space issues. I would have enjoyed that.
Now, my main point...
It should be a bannable offense at this point for you to make these comments about read/seek times. I'm pretty sure I have corrected you in several threads before and so have other people. Let's get the truth out there once again...
single layer dvd on 360 (12x read speeds) is only faster than blu-ray at a certain part of the disc. Things that need to be loaded faster go there. The blu-ray drive on the PS3 is faster, uniformly, than DL-DVDs on 360.
Installs to hard drive are, of course, even faster. There is no need for redundancy, and it certainly wouldn't take tripling or quadrupling of the data. I understand that Bethesda said they did that, but that is not the only reason load times were twice as fast on the PS3 for Oblivion. Even if redundacy is used, isn't that a great reason to have all of that space? Blu-ray is already faster than the 360 DL discs, so having more space just adds to the advantage.
|
The Blu-Ray specification states 1x speed is equal to 36Mbps, which makes 2x Blu-ray 72Mbps. http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_speed
The dvd specification states 1x speed approx 10.5Mbps, or126 Mbps for a 12x DVD drive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvd
Now as you pointed out previously, the Blu-Ray speed is constant wheras the DVD9 speed fluctuates. But you should understand that talented devs can and will place all high-priority data in the fastest parts of the disk. So commonly used textures that have to be doubled or tripled up on a Blu-Ray disk when 72Mbps is insufficient can be put on a DVD9 just once if they are placed on a part of the disk that reads at 7-12x, depending on what speed is needed.
As for seek times, 12x DVD drive seem to be in the 100ms-120ms range, while 2x Blu Ray is around 350ms. I'll try to find a link for that some time soon. But as you can see, the DVD is substantially faster. If faster Blu-Ray drives were available when the PS3 was designed, this would be a moot argument, but they weren't, so it isn't.
Whilst you are technically correct in pointing out the Blu-Ray drive is just barely faster "uniformly" (by which I assume you mean on average) than the DVD9, this is blatantly deceptive because no dev worth their salt will put important data that needs to be regularly retrieved on the slow part of a disk.
We have seen time and time again that most installs are not optional, they are necessary, because the Blu-Ray drive places a severe limitation on the Cell (and perhaps the RSX, though it isn't that powerful) without a compulsory install for regurly retreived data. To deal with the lower seek time, devs have to duplicate data on the Blu-Ray disk. In this regard, the Blu-Ray drive both creates and solves its own problem, but it does so whilst adding a substantial cost to the system.
|