So, now that MikeB's original misinformation was handled, he continues on in off topic debates.... Seriously, just give up.
@ nightsurge
It's correct and just only very few are left in denial it seems.
And I wasn't the one to first go off topic. At least you brought nothing of value to this topic.
| MikeB said: @ nightsurge It's correct and just only very few are left in denial it seems. And I wasn't the one to first go off topic. At least you brought nothing of value to this topic. |
Your information on the Blu-Ray drive being faster is NOT correct, Mike. I guess I should have specified this. Yes your info on the DVD-9 size is right. Seriously, multiple people have posted and you just ignored them, like usual. You only pick out a random sentance or two to reply about.
The Blu-ray drive is the PS3 is substantially slower than the DVD drive in the 360. That's a simple fact, one that should have no debate. However, Sony has waged a successful campaign of misinformation on that issue, and has somehow managed to convince people otherwise. Most people just don't have the technical background to understand the issue, so when Sony compares transfer rates to "prove" the PS3's drive is just as fast, people eat it right up.
(The truth is that the transfer rates aren't the problem and never were; the problem is the seek time, aka random access time. The 360's drive has a seek time of a little over 100ms, while the PS3's drive has a seek time of well over 300ms. This is why the PS3 has so many games with mandatory installs: caching data to the hard drive isn't done to improve maximum transfer rates, it's done to improve seek times. It's also why some developers have used duplicated data on Blu-ray discs: it reduces the number of data seeks required to load a scene, minimizing the effect of the bottleneck.)
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 > SL Blu-ray
DL DVD is 1.07MB/s
Majority of 360 games are on DVD-9.
Sources:
Hitachi 12x DVD-Rom Faq (Page 2)
http://www.hitachi.us/supportingdocs...ead%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
@ nightsurge
Seektimes and average transfer rates have already been addressed earlier within this thread, besides the original capacity topic.
| MikeB said: @ nightsurge Seektimes and average transfer rates have already been addressed earlier within this thread, besides the original capacity topic. |
So then you do not deny the 360's drive is faster when seek times and everything else is taken into account? Just using average transfer rates gives a misinformed picture.
nightsurge said:
So then you do not deny the 360's drive is faster when seek times and everything else is taken into account? Just using average transfer rates gives a misinformed picture. |
Like I said, any such comparisons regarding worst case scenario seektimes are wrong. If you take the maximum data capacity of a 360 DVD, like 6.8 GB, it won't have worse seektimes. Only if you go well beyond that capacity, worst case scenario seektimes are worse, but by far not as bad as the time involved with changing discs. 
Just reread this thread and follow the links, it's all pretty well explained.
nightsurge said:
So then you do not deny the 360's drive is faster when seek times and everything else is taken into account? Just using average transfer rates gives a misinformed picture. |
average transfer rates is for the format it's self when data is on the disc and being read off it, but obviously optimising data on the disc skews these values for the better, after all thats the purpose of optimising in the 1st place.
on the 360 data is optimised on the disc for faster transfers, but that's only because developers can't install games on the 360 and can only cache plus devs have to take into account the fact that games have to work off the disc with decent performance for the arcade owners with out a hard drive, while on the PS3, developers can just dump the most used data on the hard drive since every PS3 has one, and then optimise from there rather than do any optimisation on the disc it's self, since optimising form the hard drive is easier and results in better performance.
Also I'm sure that if devs were allowed they'd also have installs on the 360, why? because hard drives are faster tham dvd's or BD's, and that's a fact, but of course that's not the case, so one has to work with what there given.
So really it's just developers taking the best of each system has to offer, and then exploiting it...in otherwords there optimising their code for the specific machines strengths...nothing wrong with that.
MikeB said:
Like I said, any such comparisons regarding worst case scenario seektimes are wrong. If you take the maximum data capacity of a 360 DVD, like 6.8 GB, it won't have worse seektimes. Only if you go well beyond that capacity, worst case scenario seektimes are worse, but by far not as bad as the time involved with changing discs. Just reread this thread and follow the links, it's all pretty well explained.
|
Stop being stubborn Mike. Admit you were wrong and that the 360's DVD drive is faster and does read data off of 360 games faster than a Blu-Ray drive reads data off of PS3 games.
After people proved you wrong in this thread, you ignored their posts. You only posted information to those whom did not know what they were talking about, because you knew you could get them to be confused and believe you based on your flawed arguments. Just admit the 360's drive is faster and reads faster... Just do it.... it won't hurt admitting you were wrong. I promise.
nightsurge said:
Stop being stubborn Mike. Admit you were wrong and that the 360's DVD drive is faster and does read data off of 360 games faster than a Blu-Ray drive reads data off of PS3 games. After people proved you wrong in this thread, you ignored their posts. You only posted information to those whom did not know what they were talking about, because you knew you could get them to be confused and believe you based on your flawed arguments. Just admit the 360's drive is faster and reads faster... Just do it.... it won't hurt admitting you were wrong. I promise.
|
You do know that discussions are not about who is right or wrong, cuz that's childish, but there about being informed and having an understanding of what's actually being discussed....just a thought.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
