PS3's disk drive, faster than 3x??

[gokickrocks]

It's constant rate falls between the 10x's max and min rate, at least according to that chart and if I'm reading it properly. True, it's closer to the min rate, but still a little bit higher than that. So you'd need to find out what rate they're coding toward (the min or max or an average).

i believe they are referring to the minimum rate because of the "anything less would effect load time" comment, but thats just my take on it

i havent read up on the blu-ray drive itself, but are they supposed to be CLV drives?

 

[scooby_dooby]

Well I remember Sony announcing sampling and production of its own blu-ray OPUs ages ago, IIRC. So it is announced that they're manufacturing their own, although we have no idea of cost, of course.

I think Sony and Philips are the only companies in the world that produce them, currently.

but they haven't announced anything with regard to when it will be entering mass production or what the potential price may be.

 

[Bobbler]

why is the constant read spead on Blur Ray so much faster than DVD. This is news to me.

When you increase the density of the data and keep the rpms the same you'll increase the data throughput by a lot (look at read speeds of CD vs DVD for another example -- ~52x CD and 16x DVD are about the same rpms, but DVD is like 10+ times faster at any given rpm).

 

[Bobbler]

but they haven't announced anything with regard to when it will be entering mass production or what the potential price may be.

The announcement, if I remember right, was for a 4x BR/DVD/CD OPU that they were going to start production on in the first quarter of 06. No price was listed, but that's the only announcement of an OPU from Sony I've seen (hence my original post in this thread).

 

[scooby_dooby]

The announcement, if I remember right, was for a 4x BR/DVD/CD OPU that they were going to start production on in the first quarter of 06. No price was listed, but that's the only announcement of an OPU from Sony I've seen (hence my original post in this thread).

hmm well it should be any time now then, it's wierd to me that the philips opu81 was debuted in 2004 yet we still have no idea what they are charging for it, and how much it costs to manufacture. Why do these things move sooooo slowly?

p.s. do you have a link? 4x br drive would be great.

 

[Bobbler]

p.s. do you have a link? 4x br drive would be great.

I can't seem to find it, but it was posted on these forums somewhere (as that is where I found out about it). It's possible my memory has mixed some stuff up, but Titanio seems to remember some Sony OPU announced as well... Not sure!

Maybe someone else with a better memory can find it?

 

[scooby_dooby]

I can't seem to find it, but it was posted on these forums somewhere (as that is where I found out about it). It's possible my memory has mixed some stuff up, but Titanio seems to remember some Sony OPU announced as well... Not sure!

Maybe someone else with a better memory can find it?

oh well, we should know soon enough

 

[mckmas8808]

Disclaimer : Its sunday and im drunk from the football

Football game? The Superbowl was weeks ago!



Edited: Oh damn you're talking about Soccer. Forgot this is a worldwide internet forum.

 

[Titanio]

but they haven't announced anything with regard to when it will be entering mass production or what the potential price may be.

Well I guess it had to have entered mass production by now, the sampling announcement was back in 04. They've had blu-ray recorders on the market for a number of years now, I assume they used those lasers.

The announcement I was referring to wasn't a 4x OPU announcement, but one of the original multi-purpose CD/DVD/Blu-ray lasers.

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

Football game? The Superbowl was weeks ago!



Edited: Oh damn you're talking about Soccer. Forgot this is a worldwide internet forum.

Its an easy mistake to make given both sports go by the same name.

 

[Megadrive1988]

I expect PS3 to come with a 2x Blu-ray drive, and not anything faster. Sony has always been behind as far as load times. PS1 was slower than Saturn. PS2 was slower than Xbox and Gamecube. I expect it to be no different with PS3.

 

[overclocked]

About the quality, still going strong with my 5 year old PS2.
Although the first unit went to the store after a day because of constant lockups, but thats not relative to the drive.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Same for me, EU launch day PS2 and still as good as new.
So, personally, I'm not too worried about the quality of the PS3 drive.
What speed the PS3 drive will be, is still up to anyone's guess.
My guess is 4x

 

[Bad_Boy]

I expect PS3 to come with a 2x Blu-ray drive, and not anything faster. Sony has always been behind as far as load times. PS1 was slower than Saturn. PS2 was slower than Xbox and Gamecube. I expect it to be no different with PS3.

ps2 came out before xbox and gamecube lol. not a fair comparison if you have almost a year headstart on better drives to choose from.

 

[overclocked]

Same for me, EU launch day PS2 and still as good as new.
So, personally, I'm not too worried about the quality of the PS3 drive.
What speed the PS3 drive will be, is still up to anyone's guess.
My guess is 4x

I think "handling" of a console plays a big part also and is the reason for many failures, of course not all.
But i always been very careful with the PS2 aswell as my games.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Yes, PS1 was faster at loading than Saturn (or was it?), and PS2 was faster at loading than Dreamcast.

Playstations have never been first to market at either gen.

Besides, expecting continuity judged by just two generations is not very reliable.
If we were talking about PS9, and all PS's prior to that had been slowest at loading, then we could perhaps start predicting the future based on how things been in the past.
This is very short history, you can't yet say "history repeats itself".

 

[function]

Yes, PS1 was faster at loading than Saturn (or was it?), and PS2 was faster at loading than Dreamcast.

In my experience it was certainly the opposite. Compare Capcom's multiplatform stuff for the Saturn, or a big hit like Tomb Raider. If you aren't going to compare the same games then it's questionable how much point there is in making a comparison as so much comes down to how developers choose to use the hardware.

That said, I seem to spend more time waiting at PS2 loading screens than for any other console, including the DC, but I've not done any meaningful, objective testing and it's not like longer loading times next to the Xbox and GC have dampened the PS2s mass market appeal.

Most of the launch PS2s I've come across have continued to work up until they were switched for PSTwos, althought they have a tendancy to be damn noisy (fans and drives) next to Xboxes and GCs.

 

[Megadrive1988]

Yes, PS1 was faster at loading than Saturn (or was it?), and PS2 was faster at loading than Dreamcast.

no.

Saturn, in general, was faster at loading than PS1. they both had 2x CD-ROM drives, but Saturn had much more CD-ROM cache. 512K vs 32K, IIRC


and Dreamcast generally loaded games faster than Playstation2. ....although mainly because Dreamcast's drive had less RAM it needed to fill. if PS2's drive only had to fill 26 MB of memory instead of 38-40 MB, PS2 would load faster than Dreamcast but PS2 has approx 50% more memory that needs filling.


does anyone know what loading times were like on the Nintendo Bulky Drive / 64DD ?