The all new Carmack-inspired disk and HDD installation discussion thread* (spin-off)
- Thread starter Arwin
- Start date
That is strange. If there are data installed on the HDD, how can it still be slower?
What is the issue? Still the BR drive?
I have a question , how does the cache amounts change the performance of the drive. I notice on newegg there are some drives that have 2mb of cache and some with 512kb or less for dvd-rom drives. Bluray drives also have this. They range from 4MB to 8MBs . Could this have something to do with the relative performance of the two drives.
Yes it could, maybe we could dig up som pics of the PS3 bluray drive that showed cache chips? But i think the real issue has more to with how the developers store the data on the discs. Motorstorm is a good example on how not to do it. When you chose the vehicle you want to drive it´s annoying slow to load the graphics.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/reviews/LG-...ay-Burner-Review/Features-amp-Technology.html
Look at the LG and Lite on drives. They both write SL DVDs at 12x . The LG has twice the cache though (4MB vs 2MB ) It averages a 10.9x write speed vs 8.96 of the Lite- On. I didn't really look at bluray tests as they are diffrent speed drives for that. The LG is a 4x and the lite on is a 2x
You had to say that didn't you?
Optimizing for dvd is identical to optimizing for blu-ray. The principles are all the same, minimize seeks, minimize layer changes, duplicate data if you have the room, etc. It's not as if blu-ray is an entirely new storage medium that runs on holographic cubes. It's an optical disc with a head that seeks back and forth over it just like dvd. Point being, it's not rocket science to optimize for it.Nesh said:
I wonder if the hdd on their test machine was heavily fragmented and low on space when they installed the game, leading to fragmented install data.
I think these comparisons may be a bit disingenious. Does it say if they actually used a HDD-less core? Because a lot of games use the cache available to them, either explicitly or by automatic SDK optimisations (detailed elsewhere in a PPT here). This may also explain why we see 12 seconds for 1 fight on the 360, and then 8 on the subsequent ones (assuming they picked a similar background, otherwise they should specify that too).
I'm not saying this is the case here, but it seems to be forgotten a lot. And the PS3 probably doesn't have the same level of support, requiring developers to do the work themselves (which they then typically don't).
Last edited by a moderator:
You had to say that didn't you?
So in your experience what is it that makes 3rd party game so slow on the load part? Is the I/O handled by system libraries? Is Microsoft just better (again) with their libraries?
The reason i said it was not to blame anyone (you know i cant blame you for anything bad in regards to the PS3). But from the info we have gathered here there doesn´t seem to be a valid technical reason.
Excellent point, are we really comparing a Harddrive to a Optical drive?
That's maximum difference though, reading the outermost edge of the DVD. The innermost tracks are, IIRC, about a third the speed. So maybe about 30 Mbs. On average, the 8x DVD versus the 2x BRD isn't much difference, though I think BRD has a seek time advantage coz the tracks are closer. Then again it may have a seek time disadvantage as the head as bulkier!
Anyway, this was covered a long time ago in detail by more learned people. Search the forum for the discussion. What I do remember is there wasn't a huge amount of difference on paper, such that no consensus was ever reached and we can still be debating this now! Looking at the current crop of software does show an advantage for XB360 though. On the flip side, it sounds like a dog. Given the choice between loud drone and slightly longer load times, I know which I prefer.
None of which I'm managing to relate to the title of this thread at all well. The topic has drifted off. Might be time for a close.
The topic mostly relates to the BR drive and to some extent the Harddrive.
Paranoia pointed out that the DVD based 360 loads faster than the BR based PS3. And made a point of the mandatory harddisk installs on the PS3 wasn´t need when compared to the 360.
We at least learned something, that the 360 actively uses Cache to gain those "load" advantages. And if Sony had provided dynamic "installs" in the same fashion we might have saved some space on the mandatory installs.
Instead of a close why not just shut it down now where the lines are clearly drawn in the sand by nuking every loading speed related post?
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Also, from what I remember seeing, the PS3 version of games are larger (whether that's due to less compression or just more code, I don't know). That would mean the BD drive would have to read more data than the DVD drive in the X360, if true.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
I think mostly 1st year 360 games are the only single layer DVDs. Almost all 360 games are dual-layered, now.
Sadly, I can't read Japanese. Is that meant to be load times? Does the page say if the 360's HDD cache was hot or cold on those timings?
Oh dear. I thought the petty bickering that you would find in other gaming forums would be absent here, but unfortunately not.
p.s. Btw, I've got nothing against constructive arguments, but really hate the "my personal opinion is undeniable fact" type ones, which it seems to me like there is some of that in this thread.
p.s. Btw, I've got nothing against constructive arguments, but really hate the "my personal opinion is undeniable fact" type ones, which it seems to me like there is some of that in this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this is also an issue with the original design of multi platform games. We have heard it numerous times that when the PS3 is the lead platform that coding over the 360 version isn't that hard as compared to starting from the 360 and going over to the PS3.
We have been hearing over and over again how the PS3 is using more "streaming" to overcome memory limitations. At the same time we are hearing and learning about more and more PS3 games that are requiring HD installs. I don't think its a far stretch to see the correlation between the two and how it has played out on these forums as well as the living room.
We may never know what kind of speed limitations the Blu-Ray drive has had on the PS3, but we do know what the memory limitations have been like. We know what the difficulty of programming has been like and we even know what the split architecture has been like. So with all the things that make the PS3 so much different then the 360 can we honestly say BR is the sole reason games load slower and require mandatory installs?
I have mixed feelings about installs, one part of me is used to it from my PC Gaming days and do enjoy the absence of many loading screens. On the other hand when I take the plastic off of a game I have been anticipating to play, pop it into my machine, start it up and then.......wait...wait ....wait. Well its frustrating. BUT if you ask me if I would have rather the PS3 come out 1 year earlier with a DVD drive or would have rather waited for the Blu-Ray drive I wouldn't hesitate to say the Blu Ray drive. I have a better machine with the drive then I do without it; great games are still comming out for the PS3 and it was an easy entrance into HDM.
I don't care if the PS3 is first or dead last; that has no meaning to me. I own all three consoles but the one that is "1st" gets the "3rd" amount of gaming time. So to me the dead last console is a better machine because it produces the games I want to play and it doesn't matter if the games are on Blu-Ray or that they load slower; you can't play MGS4 on the Wii or the 360 so install away..install away!
Dregun
We have been hearing over and over again how the PS3 is using more "streaming" to overcome memory limitations. At the same time we are hearing and learning about more and more PS3 games that are requiring HD installs. I don't think its a far stretch to see the correlation between the two and how it has played out on these forums as well as the living room.
We may never know what kind of speed limitations the Blu-Ray drive has had on the PS3, but we do know what the memory limitations have been like. We know what the difficulty of programming has been like and we even know what the split architecture has been like. So with all the things that make the PS3 so much different then the 360 can we honestly say BR is the sole reason games load slower and require mandatory installs?
I have mixed feelings about installs, one part of me is used to it from my PC Gaming days and do enjoy the absence of many loading screens. On the other hand when I take the plastic off of a game I have been anticipating to play, pop it into my machine, start it up and then.......wait...wait ....wait. Well its frustrating. BUT if you ask me if I would have rather the PS3 come out 1 year earlier with a DVD drive or would have rather waited for the Blu-Ray drive I wouldn't hesitate to say the Blu Ray drive. I have a better machine with the drive then I do without it; great games are still comming out for the PS3 and it was an easy entrance into HDM.
I don't care if the PS3 is first or dead last; that has no meaning to me. I own all three consoles but the one that is "1st" gets the "3rd" amount of gaming time. So to me the dead last console is a better machine because it produces the games I want to play and it doesn't matter if the games are on Blu-Ray or that they load slower; you can't play MGS4 on the Wii or the 360 so install away..install away!
Dregun
You know when 360's DVDs will become too small for any scheme or the PS3's 2X BRD/HDD scheme become unusable?
When a new generation of consoles that uses neither scheme takes over the market.
The 360 uses DVDs that require multiple disks when more storage is needed and the PS3 uses 2x drive that needs mandatory installs to improve loads times. These aren't limitations of the consoles but limitations of this generation of consoles. As long as the 360 and PS3 sells, devs will work within the limit of the technology of both consoles and you will rarely see a game fundamentally designed that makes a near equal quality port impossible.
We are almost three years into the current generation and haven't seen one game where advantages of either console produces an overwhelming perception that their respective game is not feasible on the other platform. Furthermore, we aren't likely to see that scenario on a normal basis with this generation of consoles simply because the limitations aren't that huge of an obstacle given the current enviroment of game development.
When a new generation of consoles that uses neither scheme takes over the market.
The 360 uses DVDs that require multiple disks when more storage is needed and the PS3 uses 2x drive that needs mandatory installs to improve loads times. These aren't limitations of the consoles but limitations of this generation of consoles. As long as the 360 and PS3 sells, devs will work within the limit of the technology of both consoles and you will rarely see a game fundamentally designed that makes a near equal quality port impossible.
We are almost three years into the current generation and haven't seen one game where advantages of either console produces an overwhelming perception that their respective game is not feasible on the other platform. Furthermore, we aren't likely to see that scenario on a normal basis with this generation of consoles simply because the limitations aren't that huge of an obstacle given the current enviroment of game development.
I don't know what's the problem with PS3 requiring hdd game installation? I thought it's an advantage because games can load faster with better graphics and sound, and more complex enviroments. But apparently I was wrong...
Now I'm willing to belive that all these stories about MS Black PR are true...
Now I'm willing to belive that all these stories about MS Black PR are true...
Similar threads
