So eNCHANT aRM will come out with 2 DVDs?

[BlueTsunami]

Blu-Ray Spec

Specifications

- Drive type: External
- Supported media write: PDDRW23, (rewritable),PDDWO23(recordable), 23.3GB
- Interface: Ultra 160 LVD/SE SCSI, USB2.0
- Disk capacity 23.3GB
- Data rates: Read 11 MB/s (CLV), 4.5 - 11 MB/s (CAV) , Write 9 MB/s (CLV), 3.8 - 9 MB/s (CAV)
- Sector size: 2,048Bytes
- Seek time (CAV): Full seeking 200ms, 1/3 seeking 110ms
- Load/eject time: 6.0 seconds/3.5 seconds
- Buffer memory: 16MB
- MSBF: 300,000 times
- Dimensions: 199.3 (W) ×59 (H) ×306.3 (D) mm , Weight: 4.5Kg ,
- Power source: AC100V±10% 50/60Hz
- Electric power consumption: 20.1W (average)

This article was listed Feb 5th 2004 but the seek time is listed as 200ms. Is that the correct seek time where talking about? This is all I could find, obviously, there should be improvments since then. But how much is the question.

 

[Mmmkay]

I realize that, but DVD still will have the faster read speeds the majority of the time. And as Dev's have noted seek times are often more important than throughput, how come they haven't released any seek time #'s for the BR drives yet? or have they?

There's a big difference between the example you gave of DVD being twice as fast in a given scenario, and the ten percent advantage when you look at the numbers involved. Seek times are worse for CLV drives, but there's also the capacity for redundant data on Blu-Ray discs to help that.

There are no quotable seek times as there are no 'BD-ROM' drives yet. It's a point for speculation at the moment and will definitely depend on the type and speed of drive that Sony release.

My personal opinion is that Sony will enter with a 4x CAV drive (2x-4x) (you have a quote on this cost apparently?). The BD-ROM spec outlines a sustainable minimum of 54Mbps so that counts out any 1x drives. CLV drives have poor seek times compared to CAV which makes them bad for console purposes making a 2x drive last resort territory. The fisrt CAV drives which will be manufactured are likely to be 4x given the progression of technology shown with DVD.

Which is all still entirely moot as developers who are concerned with load times will just develop their games on DVD. Not to mention that load times are completely subjective and wildly differ depending on the resources dedicated by a developer and the type of game being played. Just saying that the PS3 will have poor load times because it is using Blu-Ray is rather ignorant of the factors which go into deciding these things.

 

[randycat99]

I believe it has also been put right before him [scooby/chap] by a resident developer of these boards that load times are far more influenced by the implementation of the game, than any kind of optical media spec, yet he keeps circling around with this anti-BR argument, over and over and over... He is simply incorrigible to learn anything beyond the preconceptions he has cherry-picked over time to conform to his chosen reality. (It's been only weeks ago where he was set upon a mystical 133 MB/s laptop drive that would come standard with X360.)

 

[scooby_dooby]

Of course, if they could afford to put a 4x or higher BR/HDDVD drive I'd be all for it

Like I said, it will be interesting to see what they do, the DVD in the XBOX was only 5x, and DVD had already been on the market for over 5 years at that time. The PS2 was even slower than that.

If they do put in a 4x drive then it's a non-issue, if not the point still stands, I would rather have faster transfer speed and lower seek times of DVD at the cost of one or two disc swaps. And I realize PS3 can also use DVD's, I'm not trying to argue about which console is better here. I'm just saying that having a next-gen media format is not all it's cracked up to be if it's going to mean signifigantly longer load times.

To bring it back on topic, if MS had've gone with an HD-DVD drive it's transfer speeds and seek times would also be worse than DVD, with brings up the same issue. J Allard said as much when he said the throughput and seek times would go out the window if they went with the next-gen media format. I agree with that assessment, it wasn't practical for them to throw in a HD-DVD drive that had better throughput than the DVD drive, we'll see what Sony does.

What makes you sure Sony won't just slap in a 1.5x BR drive to minimize costs?

 

[mckmas8808]

J Allard said as much when he said the throughput and seek times would go out the window if they went with the next-gen media format. I agree with that assessment, it wasn't practical for them to throw in a HD-DVD drive that had better throughput than the DVD drive, we'll see what Sony does.

This has less to do with MS and more to do with Sony. Nobody should be saying that MS should've went with a HD-DVD drive now. We know by now this would have been basically impossible with their schedule.

This has more to do with Sony and what advantages they could have. Remember devs making games on the PS3 can always use the same DVDs that will be used on the 360. I think when it comes to the Blu-ray disc most people are thinking about what can be done that will be harder to do on a regular DVD.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My personal opinion is that Sony will enter with a 4x CAV drive (2x-4x) (you have a quote on this cost apparently?). The BD-ROM spec outlines a sustainable minimum of 54Mbps so that counts out any 1x drives. CLV drives have poor seek times compared to CAV which makes them bad for console purposes making a 2x drive last resort territory.

Why would a 2x drive be CLV and a 4x drive be CAV?

 

[London Geezer]

Why would a 2x drive be CLV and a 4x drive be CAV?

CAV is cheaper maybe? I'm sceptical but i also just don't know.

 

[Mmmkay]

Why would a 2x drive be CLV and a 4x drive be CAV?

CLV is an older technology, most modern drives are CAV. However at slow speeds such as 2x, the older technology would be preferred for Blu-Ray as 2x CAV would not meet the minimum sustainable speed which BD-ROM requires.

 

[drpepper]

What does CAV and CLV stand for? What's the difference in technology?

 

[London Geezer]

What does CAV and CLV stand for? What's the difference in technology?

Constant Angular Velocity and Constant Linear Velocity.

In one, the spin speed is constant so read speed changes.
The other, the spin speed changes so the read speed is constant.

Very simplified explanation.

 

[scooby_dooby]

CLV is an older technology, most modern drives are CAV. However at slow speeds such as 2x, the older technology would be preferred for Blu-Ray as 2x CAV would not meet the minimum sustainable speed which BD-ROM requires.

Why not a 1.5x CLV? It will be the cheapest to produce while still meeting BR spec for movie playback.

 

[London Geezer]

Why not a 1.5x CLV? It will be the cheapest to produce while still meeting BR spec for movie playback.

Why not 1.75X? I mean we're all pulling numbers out of our ass, might as well pull out any kind of arbitrary number then!

What's the point on keeping forcing a number on us? it will be 2X or more

 

[Mmmkay]

Why not a 1.5x CLV? It will be the cheapest to produce while still meeting BR spec for movie playback.

STAN
I need to talk about your flair.

JOANNA
Really? I have 15 buttons on. I, uh, (shows him)

STAN
Well, ok, 15 is minimum, ok?

JOANNA
Ok.

STAN
Now, it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare
minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair. And a
terrific smile.

JOANNA
Ok. Ok, you want me to wear more?

STAN
Look. Joanna.

JOANNA
Yeah.

STAN
People can get a cheeseburger anywhere, ok? They come to Chotchkie's
for the atmosphere and the attitude. That's what the flair's about.
It's about fun.

JOANNA
Ok. So, more then?

STAN
Look, we want you to express yourself, ok? If you think the bare
minimum is enough, then ok. But some people choose to wear more and we
encourage that, ok? You do want to express yourself, don't you?

JOANNA
Yeah. Yeah.

STAN
Great. Great. That's all I ask.

JOANNA
Ok.

You know it would be a mistake, I know it would be a mistake, Sony knows it would be a mistake. Irrespective of the fact we still have no idea how much BD-ROM drives cost to manufacture, the PS3 will be a loss-leader and there are many more factors than cost alone which decide what goes into it. If Sony were interested in the bare minimum then they could easily have knocked 50-100MHz off their RSX, dropped another SPE in CELL, or dumped XDR. Considering that Blu-Ray is a flagship feature for the PS3, it makes even less sense to believe that they would skimp on its features. You seem to be trying to make an artificially weak bullet point comparison that we just don't have enough information on.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Why not 1.75X? I mean we're all pulling numbers out of our ass, might as well pull out any kind of arbitrary number then!

What's the point on keeping forcing a number on us? it will be 2X or more

The number couldn't be any LESS arbitrary. It's the minimum required read speed for BD-Movie playback(54mbps).

I don't see why it's so out of the question, 4 years after DVD was on the market PS2 came with what a 3x CAV drive?? Sony hasn't exactly "splurged" on high optical read speeds in the past, they could easily package a 1.5x drive, minimize their costs, while still support BR movie playback and 25GB BR games, albeit with long load times.

I see a whole lot of wishful thinking going on here, 2x or more, maybe, 4x?? No way, but hey, you never know, we'll see. No sense arguing about things like this, unless anyone here has some actual proof of what speed drive will be in the PS3 it's all conjecture.

 

[mckmas8808]

If Sony were interested in the bare minimum then they could easily have knocked 50-100MHz off their RSX, dropped another SPE in CELL, or dumped XDR. Considering that Blu-Ray is a flagship feature for the PS3, it makes even less sense to believe that they would skimp on its features. You seem to be trying to make an artificially weak bullet point comparison that we just don't have enough information on.

Yeah waiting on this information is killing me. Give us some info Sony.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Yeah waiting on this information is killing me. Give us some info Sony.

Thats not going to happen soon. Media blackout 2005! Don't expect to hear anything substantial about (specifically) the PS3. Possibly the architecture (small snipets) or the actual compenents (RSX, CELL and Blu-Ray but only RSX really being linked to the PS3 Cell and Blu-Ray in other forms) but this Holiday (for Sony) its about PSP and PS2.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Info will be in short supply until they can finalise what's available and cost effective. eg. Sony are likely considering drive options, and may be waiting on what's available around December when they start making the machines. They'll have named a minimum spec for devs but potentially be keeping their options open in case something better is possible. As such KK and other Sony events may not mention any specs like drive speed until later, as until later they may not know themselves exactly what they'll put in!

 

[mckmas8808]

Shifty I wonder what that minimum spec speed is?

 

[scooby_dooby]

Blu-Ray Spec

This article was listed Feb 5th 2004 but the seek time is listed as 200ms. Is that the correct seek time where talking about? This is all I could find, obviously, there should be improvments since then. But how much is the question.

In comparison the seek time on the 12x DVD is 115ms, nearly half.
http://www.gamersreports.com/index.php?sid=3138

"The transfer rate of the DVD drive is 15MB/sec max, 10-12MB/sec average. The seek time is 115ms, switching layers takes 75ms. Loading 512MB data takes 34 seconds."

Also, average speed is 80-96mbps, not 66-92 as claimed, so a 12x DVD would still be considerably faster than a 2x CLV BR as far as seek times, and have marginally faster read speeds.

 

[Mefisutoferesu]

Scooby why do you keep pulling this stuff? You're comparing FULL seek time on blu-ray to average seek time on DVDs. Guess what, Full seek time on DVDs is over 200ms, please stop with this incessant FUD'ing. You know better.