You also have to state the fact that DVD has a variable speed rate, and actually only stays at an average between half it's speed and it's full speed, so around 9x. Meaning they read the same speed.

The problem comes in due to size. BD data is nearly 3 to 4 times the size of data on a DVD. DVDs use smaller data, and also use compression.(Such as using lower quality for audio, PS3 supports full 7.1 etc etc). Now you are reading the same amount of data, but DVD would read the equal amount, in about half to 1/4th the rate the BD would BECAUSE of size of data. Though you can compress data on a BD disc as well and avoid installing all together. Though compressed data needs to be uncompressed before it can be used, when taking that into account the speed difference is not noticeable really. Some lazy devs will use installs, and some other devs will need installs(MGS4, 50 gig game...), though some devs will optimize to shit, like uncharted and never need installs or long loading.

Ascended_Saiyan3 said: Squilliam said: I don't see the averages taking into account; 1. The Xbox 360 doesn't use the innermost 1GB tracks. 2. Data would be optimised to be delivered faster when needed. and another 3. If BD was so quick in comparison, why are so many installs MANDATORY. So the proof is in the results. 1. The ENTIRE disc is read, where it has to read the security portion or the game data. 2. Are you trying to say that the data wouldn't be "optimised to be delivered faster when needed" on a Blu-ray disc? 3. That's not the correct question. Why are there so many games WITHOUT mandatory installs? That should be the question for you. "The proof is in the results."

Regarding point 3, I think what Squilliam is saying is that no 360 game requires a mandatory install, while plenty of PS3 games do, so 360's drive is at least not worse than the PS3's. I don't think he's saying that it's necessarily better.

 

NJ5 said: Ascended_Saiyan3 said: Squilliam said: I don't see the averages taking into account; 1. The Xbox 360 doesn't use the innermost 1GB tracks. 2. Data would be optimised to be delivered faster when needed. and another 3. If BD was so quick in comparison, why are so many installs MANDATORY. So the proof is in the results. 1. The ENTIRE disc is read, where it has to read the security portion or the game data. 2. Are you trying to say that the data wouldn't be "optimised to be delivered faster when needed" on a Blu-ray disc? 3. That's not the correct question. Why are there so many games WITHOUT mandatory installs? That should be the question for you. "The proof is in the results."   Regarding point 3, I think what Squilliam is saying is that no 360 game requires a mandatory install, while plenty of PS3 games do, so 360's drive is at least not worse than the PS3's. I don't think he's saying that it's necessarily better.

If you see my post on this page (3), Halo 3 uses the HDD (if present).  That increases the speed of data delivery.  How much you wanna bet that this wasn't a one time implementation? ;)

 

Ascended_Saiyan3 said: NJ5 said: Regarding point 3, I think what Squilliam is saying is that no 360 game requires a mandatory install, while plenty of PS3 games do, so 360's drive is at least not worse than the PS3's. I don't think he's saying that it's necessarily better.   If you see my post on this page (3), Halo 3 uses the HDD (if present). That increases the speed of data delivery. How much you wanna bet that this wasn't a one time implementation? ;)

Uses the HDD if present = non-mandatory installation.

 

JamesCizuz said: You also have to state the fact that DVD has a variable speed rate, and actually only stays at an average between half it's speed and it's full speed, so around 9x. Meaning they read the same speed. The problem comes in due to size. BD data is nearly 3 to 4 times the size of data on a DVD. DVDs use smaller data, and also use compression.(Such as using lower quality for audio, PS3 supports full 7.1 etc etc). Now you are reading the same amount of data, but DVD would read the equal amount, in about half to 1/4th the rate the BD would BECAUSE of size of data. Though you can compress data on a BD disc as well and avoid installing all together. Though compressed data needs to be uncompressed before it can be used, when taking that into account the speed difference is not noticeable really. Some lazy devs will use installs, and some other devs will need installs(MGS4, 50 gig game...), though some devs will optimize to shit, like uncharted and never need installs or long loading.

Data is compressed on BDs as well.  This speeds the loading of data.  You correct.  There is usually more data needed/used  for the PS3.  An example would be DiRT.  That game uses a LOT more DSP effects and it uses 7.1 LPCM audio.  The coding and size of the files would be larger, naturally.

 

NJ5 said: Ascended_Saiyan3 said: Squilliam said: I don't see the averages taking into account; 1. The Xbox 360 doesn't use the innermost 1GB tracks. 2. Data would be optimised to be delivered faster when needed. and another 3. If BD was so quick in comparison, why are so many installs MANDATORY. So the proof is in the results. 1. The ENTIRE disc is read, where it has to read the security portion or the game data. 2. Are you trying to say that the data wouldn't be "optimised to be delivered faster when needed" on a Blu-ray disc? 3. That's not the correct question. Why are there so many games WITHOUT mandatory installs? That should be the question for you. "The proof is in the results."   Regarding point 3, I think what Squilliam is saying is that no 360 game requires a mandatory install, while plenty of PS3 games do, so 360's drive is at least not worse than the PS3's. I don't think he's saying that it's necessarily better.

Your point was far too logical for AS3 to understand.  I agree though.

 

NJ5 said: Ascended_Saiyan3 said: NJ5 said: Regarding point 3, I think what Squilliam is saying is that no 360 game requires a mandatory install, while plenty of PS3 games do, so 360's drive is at least not worse than the PS3's. I don't think he's saying that it's necessarily better.   If you see my post on this page (3), Halo 3 uses the HDD (if present). That increases the speed of data delivery. How much you wanna bet that this wasn't a one time implementation? ;)   Uses the HDD if present = non-mandatory installation.

Hello.  you CAN'T have a mandatory installation if NO HDD exists, of course.  You CAN have mandatory installations IF a HDD exists in EVERY console.  We are talking about things that WOULD LEAD to the end result.

 

@slowmo I see you are living up to your name. Try to keep up.

Ascended_Saiyan3 said: NJ5 said: Ascended_Saiyan3 said: NJ5 said: Regarding point 3, I think what Squilliam is saying is that no 360 game requires a mandatory install, while plenty of PS3 games do, so 360's drive is at least not worse than the PS3's. I don't think he's saying that it's necessarily better.   If you see my post on this page (3), Halo 3 uses the HDD (if present). That increases the speed of data delivery. How much you wanna bet that this wasn't a one time implementation? ;)   Uses the HDD if present = non-mandatory installation.   Hello.  you CAN'T have a mandatory installation if NO HDD exists, of course.  You CAN have mandatory installations IF a HDD exists in EVERY console.  We are talking about things that WOULD LEAD to the end result.

Mandatory installations are a negative for a game, its not exactly a positive marketing bullet point. Developers would prefer not to use them.

 

@ Ascended_Saiyan3

Agreed, to understand Blu-Ray you should look at the best results and not the worst results.

Looking at the best results so far, games which required no mandatory installs such as Motorstorm: Pacific Rift, Killzone 2 and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune should provide much insight. Interestingly they are also some of the technically most impressive PS3 games around. It seems games like Heavy Rain and Uncharted 2 may further optimise this trend.

When looking at the worst results, you are mostly judging issues originating from former usage of more legacy technology. Blu-Ray being relatively new, requires different approaches to take the best advantage of. Like a single or double, etc threaded gaming engine cannot be expected the get the most out of the Cell processor.

Not counting the mostly OS dedicated hardware threads, PS3 gaming engines should at least be spread over 7 threads and this is only the first step on the long road for achieving optimal performance from the Cell eventually.

However IMO the PS3 Blu-Ray drive load speed is not remarkably fast for the provided storage space (but sufficient still, all the data on a 25 GB disc can be streamed in less than a hour), as for example, however with regard to average seektimes and loadtimes faster than the 360's DVD drive.

The default harddrive in the PS3 is a lot faster and should be taken advantage of in terms of Blu-Ray streaming (/data caching) and can be taken advantage of in terms of pre-installed data as well. This would IMO make sense for often used files.

So, IMO mandatory harddrive installs can be a pro as you can achieve better results. However regarding many 3rd party games it's just used as a quick and dirty workaround to make up for the technology differences between DVD and Blu-Ray disc.