PS3 vs 360 Drive Speed Question

[MistaPi]

I don't quite understand this template:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:HighDefMediaComparison

Regarding maximum raw data transfer. Do they know the upper limit for how fast a blu-ray drive can become or is this regarding something else?

 

[Strange]

Raw data transfer rate (hardwarewise) for 1xBD is 36Mbits/s
PS3 is 2x BD so it has 72Mbits/s=9MB/s
This is the reason 2xBD is required for Blu-ray players.

I think the maximum bitrate noted there is more video orientated.

Anyway, if one does some decent research, one would find that the 360 drive's 12x pretty much gets downgraded to around 8x when reading dual layer (even plextor's DVD drives do this).

That 8x read speed converts to a ~6x overall read speed (4x~8x depending on the location of the read) and that translates to a generally lower read speed than BD drives.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

And yet, most multiplatform titles have longer load times on the PS3...

 

[manux]

And then there is the question about noise the drives make when reading data. In some sense noise is more annoying to the end user than minor speed differences in reading the disc. Especially if games can cache to hard drive to optimise reading and/or if the game is implemented in a way which takes the strengths and weaknesses of the physical media to account.

 

[Panajev2001a]

And yet, most multiplatform titles have longer load times on the PS3...

A lot of titles on PS2 had load times in the double digits range... to fill 32 MB of RAM...

 

[Blade47167]

And yet, most multiplatform titles have longer load times on the PS3...

Because those developers are lazy. Most PS3 exclusives have barely any load time.

 

[Quaz51]

PS3 games are in CLV mode or CAV mode? nobody know that?

 

[Jesus2006]

And yet, most multiplatform titles have longer load times on the PS3...

Which ones?

 

[Strange]

PS3 games are in CLV mode or CAV mode? nobody know that?

Blu-ray should be Constant Linear Velocity, which provides a stable read speed across the whole disk.
DVD is Constant Angular Velocity, which produces a difference in read speed across the disk
From research the read rate is approxmately 50%~100% of the advertised read rate
12x reads from 6~12x, resulting in a average of around 9x (yes, I know, but I don't want to delve into the calculus of the matter)

 

[Quaz51]

Blu-ray should be Constant Linear Velocity, which provides a stable read speed across the whole disk.
DVD is Constant Angular Velocity, which produces a difference in read speed across the disk
From research the read rate is approxmately 50%~100% of the advertised read rate
12x reads from 6~12x, resulting in a average of around 9x (yes, I know, but I don't want to delve into the calculus of the matter)

at the origin DVD is CLV too and modern DVD have multi mode (CAV, CLV...)
and i think BD drive for PC have, or will have in near futur, a CAV mode because CLV is good for streaming video, or streaming data (optimized games with optimized/redundancy distribution of datas and optimized use of HDD can to be in this case) but not for random access files in a common PC usage (and CLV mode don't make possible to push the drive at the max potentiel rate because the physical ~10000rpm barrier. in CLV mode BD can to attain ~x4-5 max whereas in CAV mode the BD will can to push at x10-12 in the external disc surface for te futur)

when you say PS3 BD drive is only CLV it's hypothesis or affirmation?

 

[Quaz51]

From research the read rate is approxmately 50%~100% of the advertised read rate
12x reads from 6~12x, resulting in a average of around 9x (yes, I know, but I don't want to delve into the calculus of the matter)

for precision the ratio between external rate read and internal rate read on classic optical disc(CD, DVD, BD, HD-DVD...) in CAV mode is x2.4 (it's the ratio between the radius of the first data track and the radius of the last data track)
for example a x12 DVD CAV have max theorical read rate of x5 (12/2.4) in the internal surface, or 16.6MB/s vs 6.9MB/s, but they are more surface/data in the external side than in the internal side then i agree with your aproximate evaluation for the average (if not considere the seek time in the equation of course)

 

[Strange]

at the origin DVD is CLV too and modern DVD have multi mode (CAV, CLV...)
and i think BD drive for PC have, or will have in near futur, a CAV mode because CLV is good for streaming video, or streaming data (optimized games with optimized/redundancy distribution of datas and optimized use of HDD can to be in this case) but not for random access files in a common PC usage (and CLV mode don't make possible to push the drive at the max potentiel rate because the physical ~10000rpm barrier. in CLV mode BD can to attain ~x4-5 max whereas in CAV mode the BD will can to push at x10-12 in the external disc surface for te futur)

when you say PS3 BD drive is only CLV it's hypothesis or affirmation?

More hypothesis.
I'm pretty sure as of right now BD is only CLV
I'm not sure if PS3 reads DVDs in CAV too, I think I've heard something about it the BD drive being able to read DVDs in that mode somewhere.....

 

[Quaz51]

More hypothesis.
I'm pretty sure as of right now BD is only CLV
I'm not sure if PS3 reads DVDs in CAV too, I think I've heard something about it the BD drive being able to read DVDs in that mode somewhere.....

We don't care that BD drive read DVD in CAV mode because the PS3 games are strictly on BD
if the PS3 BD drive have only CLV BD mode then PS3 games are only in CLV mode. you are sure BD is only CLV actually? (i think too but i never seen clear confirmation)

and on PS2, games are in x4 CAV or x4 CLV?

 

[AlNom]

and on PS2, games are in x4 CAV or x4 CLV?

Anandtech says it is a 4x CAV drive.

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=1561&p=9

For comparison, the PS2 DVD player is a 4X CAV unit with an inner track speed of around 1 - 2X.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

The PS2 drive can operate in either CAV or CLV mode. CAV is faster, but less stable, and only works on one layer of a dual layer disc.

We ran the drive in CLV mode, and I don't want to revisit the amount of time I spent laying out the 8GB of data we crammed onto the disc.

 

[Rangers]

Which ones?

Half Life 2 is a recent one.

More troubling still is the difference in load times. Almost all the PS3 load times are at least five seconds more than the 360, but loading a saved game/loading after death is particularly awful. These clock in at about two to three times as long as the 360 version, which slows down the gameplay considerably. Even though the PS3 Orange Box sports a quicksave feature, any benefit of this option is lost considering the overall abundance of loading.


Even in Portal, a short title that often requires a little trial and error, this problem is massive. The 360 version takes about three seconds to load your last checkpoint if you die. The PS3 version takes seventeen. It hurts.

We must also mention that during all of our Team Fortress 2 play sessions, there was a very startling delay when using explosive weapons like the Soldier's rocket launcher or the Demoman's grenade launcher. When you pull the trigger to fire, there's a very brief but noticeable delay between the recoil of the weapon and the actual delivery of the explosive. This can seriously screw up your timing when trying to lead a rocket shot, or similar attacks.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/840/840505p3.html

 

[David_South#1]

Forgive for not reading though the whole thread.
But the initial point missed the point of a consoles real world performance.

With the ps3 games are cached to the Hard Disc Drive and read from there.
Multiple people online have swapped out for a 7200rpm HDD and games run 10-16% faster load and boot times etc.

It's interesting to look at the optical just to know the streaming limits.
But if a developer is worth their salt, on the PS3 you will always cache to the HDD.
What the Ranger above me cites is people that didn't use the latest tool available to them & did a very poorly done port.
SDK 3.0, "Playstation Edge", and a lot of other tools are making a huge difference.

With Xbox360 I don't know what they are doing.
I haven't seen anyone online recommend a 7200rpm drive because it's a closed system.
Additionally the Xbox360 Arcade doesn't come with an HDD.
So all games can not rely on caching to the HDD.
And are designed with the optical limits you are comparing.
Not including an HDD seems like a clever move by MS to add hidden costs to the consumer.

Especially since Xbox360 is talking about downloadable content,
and the only drive for sale at the local stores is 120GB @ $180 American.
In addition to the $280 Arcade = $460.
And if you didn't buy the HDD the memory stick barely has enough room for the games and $50 live membership you paid for.
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/x/xbox360arcadesystem/

Plus there are even more added costs.
I like Xbox360 and thought it was the better choice at launch.
But there are a lot of people trying to save money by buying the cheaper console.
When in reality it has been a financial leech on lower spending consumer pocket books.
Costing those financially poor people more than if they had paid for the elite or premium models to start with.

Yeah PS3 has cut our backward compatibility on the $400 model.
But at least you get everything you need too consistently benefit from what they are offering.
And did so even without having to buy batteries and even more tie-ins like Xbox360.
A $10-15 HDMI 1.3 certified cable and "Deep Color" settings is all you need for the best gaming PS3 has to offer.

 

[Blade47167]

Half Life 2 is a recent one.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/840/840505p3.html

AGAIN *COUGH* EA *COUGH*...

And with Gabe's thoughts about the PS3 how would it have been any better if it had been done by Valve anyway. Thats why I refuse to buy anything but First Party Titles (Not including Lair) unless the PS3 version is at least as good as the 360 counterpart like it should be.

 

[-tkf-]

The BR drive is faster.
The main culprit with loadtimes is not the actual spooling of data off the disc, it's moving the reading head to where the data is. This is why redundant data is so important and why the BR drive is faster, despite its marginally lower Mb per second rate.

Dude.. you should read the thread, moving the head has been covered and it seems you could be wrong:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=913202&postcount=55

for similar sized data sets the BD drive typically has almost the same if not significantly faster random seek times. That's generally because data sets between 4-8GB span the entire disc for for DVD-ROM while only covering a third of a BD-ROM, so on average a BD-ROM is going to have seek times in the range 50-100ms with a worst case scenario of around 200-230ms. The DVD-ROM drive will average between 110-150ms with a worst case scenario of around 170-230ms.

Of course once you start getting into larger data sets that that Blu-Ray can handle the average and worst case scenarios (which is an entire disc sweep which takes around 350-400ms) will eclipse the worst case conditions on a DVD-ROM. That being said, even with 23+GB of data with a 100 randomly generate seek sectors I still get around 100ms on average. Besides, if you find the need to randomly jump around to random sectors greater than 4GB in span, then your title has bigger issues than the capabilities of the drive.

 

[Jesus2006]

Dude.. you should read the thread, moving the head has been covered and it seems you could be wrong:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=913202&postcount=55

Err, that quote actually says BR is "faster" (avg seek-time wise).