PS3 vs 360 Drive Speed Question

[-tkf-]

You have any links for that? I like real-world sampling, and sadly one gets damn few examples of it.

I have a few, sadly 12 x speed is pretty old in the DVD world, but here is a few examples of DVD speed:

16x speed drives, averages 12x
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=11566&PageId=3
Notice how bad the DL performance is.

Older reviews without DL perfomance:
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=6176&PageId=4
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=6078&PageId=4

Etc etc, as i mentioned i have seen 12x speed drives hardly making 8xspeed on average.

DVD Burners with different read speeds, the fastest at 16x averages just above 9.
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2224&p=9

With only 3.5GB (is that really true, i find it hard to belive) on each layer i guess the 8xspeed should be secure, those developers wanting the full speed must have to limit themselves quit heavily?

 

[-tkf-]

I would also liked to see it benchmarked. The first thing I remember reading was how the Blu-ray was inferior to the 360's DVD drive but from these facts thats just doesn't appear to be so. Especially if all developers get to the point were games are streamed like Lair.

Where did you read it was inferior?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So while Blu-ray may have a general slower seek time...

Do we know why BRD has lower reported seek times? Is it merely a matter of averages of tracking larger amounts of data as Phil's raised? Or does the hardware need to work slower to be accurate enough? Given denser tracks, the seek times should be shorter on the same head-motors, as the head can cover a larger amount of data in the same amount of movement.

 

[woundingchaney]

I believe that most are pointing to this article when speaking on dev. statements about drive speed and seek times of the platforms.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/17/ps3s-blu-ray-drive-speed-could-be-reason-for-oblivion-delay/


I was under the impression that the concept of storing significantly more data over the same space is usually associated with seek times, as well as the head itself not moving as fast (afaik). The use of redundant data would of course improve seek times, this would also partially explain why cross platform titles having the same content have more data on BR disks. There is several statements regarding "slow" seek times and BR although Im not sure the issue has ever been fully explained. Could it be an issue with latency??
- been looking for an explanation to "slow" BR seek times for an hour I give up (obviously need to sharpen my surfing abilities).


Min - Max 12x dvd speeds and 1x - 12x BR

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23916169&user=skektek - warning old article

Mastering disks should give comparable speed performances for data on the outer ring (which holds the larger amount of data in circumfrence) for the larger/necessary files although of course one can expect slower speeds as nearing the center of the disk. (which makes standard average speed tests misleading given the scenario)


I honestly have no idea what amount a 360 disk can hold per side but reports range from 7-8 gig total this would be interesting to know.

 

[Blade47167]

Where did you read it was inferior?

Well what I thought I was reading at first were in reality user based opinions were they had no idea what they were talking about. There was one an article on Gamespot but it was also a user posted opinion.

I guess the Oblivion thing would be the only one but I know understand that it was due to seek times.

 

[assen]

Where did you read it was inferior?

A major cross-platform title which has sold well on both platforms, from a developer with dozens of SKUs over about 10 years of console experience, is running off the DVD on 360, but caching everything on the HDD on PS3, because "we've found Blu-ray to be effectively twice as slow for streaming" they say.

 

[Mmmkay]

With only 3.5GB (is that really true, i find it hard to belive) on each layer i guess the 8xspeed should be secure, those developers wanting the full speed must have to limit themselves quit heavily?

I wanted to find out more about the 360's disc structure, and well, invariably that's going to make it difficult to cite information given the illegal activities on the websites I ended up at...

This is a screenshot of an application someone provided in a tutorial (I've taken the liberty of cropping out their gamertag and the application name). It shows the process of creating a raw dump of a 360 disc.

This is a description the author provided for each action (for a different game):

LBA0 to LBA19407 : TOC and video session
LBA19408 to LBA20479 : bad sectors (visible ring)
LBA20480 to LBA129823 : fake lead out
LBA129824 to LBA1913759 : XDVDFS session on layer0. The size is 1783936 sectors
LBA1913760 to LBA3697696 : XDVDFS session on layer1. The size is 1783936 sectors

In all the examples I could find on the internet, those two regions were always 1783936 sectors long. The 'magic number' as noted in the screenshot is an arbitrary value that determines when on the disc the second layer's data begins and is different for each game. That, coupled with the security sector, is the reason why 'backups' usually float around the 7.05GB marker. But these are raw dumps, so don't take into account any unused space in the two data regions. When decoded, the actual data used by the game is usually less.

Given that each sector is 2KB, it equates to a usable disc space of 3484.25MB per layer.

 

[Fafalada]

It's an interesting scenario I would like to see benchmarked.

It's been done, by our own member too:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=913202&postcount=55

 

[Mmmkay]

It's been done, by our own member too:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=913202&postcount=55

Wow, I had forgotten all about that post. Cheers

I'm not sure whether that drive matches the characteristics of the PS3's drive though. Since it reads BD-R's wouldn't it be possible to create a test in Linux on the PS3?

 

[-tkf-]

Given that each sector is 2KB, it equates to a usable disc space of 3484.25MB per layer.

Nice work, so the 360 has a maximum of 6968MB storage, how is that compared to the original XBOX?

7GB vs 25/50GB that is not alot!

 

[Rangers]

Nice work, so the 360 has a maximum of 6968MB storage, how is that compared to the original XBOX?

7GB vs 25/50GB that is not alot!

So somehow DVD loses 1.5/8.5 (17%) of it's capacity to some type of overhead, but Blu_Ray is always listed as having access to 100.00% of it's theoretical 25/50 totals?

Yeah somehow I dont think that's the full story.

There are PS3 iso rips..so maybe Mmmmkay could run the same analysis on them?

 

[Todd33]

So somehow DVD loses 1.5/8.5 (17%) of it's capacity to some type of overhead, but Blu_Ray is always listed as having access to 100.00% of it's theoretical 25/50 totals?

Yeah somehow I dont think that's the full story.

There are PS3 iso rips..so maybe Mmmmkay could run the same analysis on them?

I think BD moves are limited to like 23GB (SL).

Edit: Some BD movie size,

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=760714

 

[Blade47167]

Nice work, so the 360 has a maximum of 6968MB storage, how is that compared to the original XBOX?

7GB vs 25/50GB that is not alot!

Its possible that they limit it because they know the inner most part will be the slowest. Perhaps its to force developers to keep their games within those constraints. Who knows tho.

I really would like to see some benchmarks. Im hoping UT3 when its released cross platform will show us something since the Unreal engine is based on Texture Streaming and the PS3 is designed for Texture Streaming.

 

[Fafalada]

Since it reads BD-R's wouldn't it be possible to create a test in Linux on the PS3?

You'd need someone with BD-R drive and BD-R disc to waste Come to think of it, archie is probably your best bet on this forum.
But I think it could be done with standard BD disc too - you don't need actual files to test seeks, moving around sectors will work just fine, if Linux exposes that kind of access.

So somehow DVD loses 1.5/8.5 (17%) of it's capacity to some type of overhead

DVD9 capacity is 7.95GB, not 8.5.
On 360, The missing 12% is apparently attributed to DRM, but I wouldn't know for sure.

 

[Zaphod]

On 360, The missing 12%

Well, It's actually missing roughly 14.5%. 2 x 3484.25MB ~ 6.8GB and (6.8/7.95)-1*100 = -14.465.

 

[Blade47167]

You'd need someone with BD-R drive and BD-R disc to waste Come to think of it, archie is probably your best bet on this forum.
But I think it could be done with standard BD disc too - you don't need actual files to test seeks, moving around sectors will work just fine, if Linux exposes that kind of access.

You are able to mount movies and games within linux. You can even dump them. Would that be sufficient access to test them?

Although would speeds faster when dumping something compared to when it was actually loading game data?

 

[Fafalada]

Would that be sufficient access to test them?

It ought to be.

Although would speeds faster when dumping something compared to when it was actually loading game data?

Not at all. Besides we were talking about measuring seek times, not transfer speeds.

 

[Blackraven]

I'm a PS3 and Wii fanboy (well almost but I also plan on getting a X360 Elite next year).

Question:
I guess that one disadvantage that PS3 will have over X360 is that the Blu-ray optical drive used (2x Blu-ray) is slower than XBOX 360 drive (12x DVD).

I've tried Ridge Racer 7 PS3 (in an AV store) and loading was around 20 seconds (to load the map). 5-10 seconds is only possible if you install the game data (to HDD). I also heard (from the forums) that Motorstorm is a slow loader.

So with that in mind, can anything be done so that future games won't be sluggish in loading.........without the need to install game system data to the Hard Drive (thus removing any need for RR7-like options)???

Can anything be done (by devs...or by anyone)........or did Sony doomed this upon us???

 

[Darkon]

I'm a PS3 and Wii fanboy (well almost but I also plan on getting a X360 Elite next year).

Question:
I guess that one disadvantage that PS3 will have over X360 is that the Blu-ray optical drive used (2x Blu-ray) is slower than XBOX 360 drive (12x DVD).

I've tried Ridge Racer 7 PS3 (in an AV store) and loading was around 20 seconds (to load the map). 5-10 seconds is only possible if you install the game data (to HDD). I also heard (from the forums) that Motorstorm is a slow loader.

So with that in mind, can anything be done so that future games won't be sluggish in loading.........without the need to install game system data to the Hard Drive (thus removing any need for RR7-like options)???

Can anything be done (by devs...or by anyone)........or did Sony doomed this upon us???

How about reading this thread

 

[Blackraven]

How about reading this thread

I did (thrice already) although.......lots of geeky and nerdy terms that an average person like me can't understand.......although I did get a few points though:

Not sure about these though (someone correct me)

Summary of points for the PS3:
-Use streaming method (like what Lair uses)
-Certain games like Oblivion use redundant data to cover up for slow Blu-ray drive.
-2x Blu-ray is faster than minimum of 12x DVD but slower than its maximum
-CAV versus CLV
-A 4x Blu-ray drive is needed to eclipse the XBOX 360 DVD drive (min. & max.)
-PS3 could have been the "SPEED KING" of optical drives for next-gen consoles if they used a 4x Blu-ray drive.......but I guess costs, time and tech difficulties were problems.....so Sony used the 2x Blu-ray drive instead

That's too bad . If Sony used a 4x drive, then we wouldn't have this debate.....but I guess nothing can't be done and the limitations/constraints are too heavy atm.

Oh well......I just hope devs can find a way to work around this handicap........coz I definitely don't want FF13 to be a snail(should be AT LEAST under 10 seconds).