What is Digg?104 Comments
- SimonX314, on 10/12/2007, -7/+75"faster because they don't need to decompress"
Wrong. Compressed assets always load faster than their uncompressed counterparts. - mageofdeath, on 10/12/2007, -4/+51its not really surprising, most of the informed people on digg knew that the BD drive in ps3 would be slower, what is surprising are the methods the developers are taking to combat the load times...
oh and oblivion was really slow loading on the 360, so I don't even want to know what the load times on the ps3 are like... - Mikkle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+42The article is dated January 17, 2007... but maybe you're reading this from the future so what do I know.
- NipGrip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38"The results might surprise you."
Of course, yes, they also might shock and amaze you. They might bore you as well. The results may make you hungry. The results might make you think of a more sensationalist title for this post. They might make you puke. The results might make your hair fall out. The results might make you go blind. They might make you wish you were looking at porn. - Anpheus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25They compiled the code to make the _data_ larger?
What? - knodi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Makes you wonder how a game like R:FOM can take up that much data. Its Single player is no longer then 10hours and MP maps are half the size of lost planet map yet the game is 22gig?? something is wrong there.
- JaytB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Decompression, Compression?
Well lets take the drive speed into account
DVD-read speed: 12x (16MB/s)
Compressed file size: 1 GB file size (45% Compression: example of Ghost image file which is decompressed at about a low estimate of 650MB/ on a P4-3.2Ghz)
cpu usage: 2.5% for a 12x decompression (@3.2Ghz 100%=650MB/s or 16MB/s= (100/650)*16=2.46%)
total read time: 1min4sec (1024/16)
Blu-Ray read speed: 2x (9MB/s)
Uncompressed file-size: 1.45GB
total read time: 2min45sec
Cpu usage: almost 0%
I must admit it's late and I really didn't check my own numbers, but as I see it, I will gladly offer 2.5% of my CPU time for a decrease in load time of 61%. Not to bash at Sony, but I think their Cell could perform some real strong decompression algorithms' at very high compression rates so they could make their load times faster, but then again why have blu-ray when you're going to compress your data into a single layer DVD-size or less?
I'm not trying to be smart or anything, I was just doing some simple calculations. Correct me if I'm wrong. - Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Well, even if Bartboy misworded it, he raises a good point -- since Resistance was intended to be the killer app at launch, there might well be a lot of phony data in there to make it look like it's using more than a DVD-9's worth of assets. The rumor that most of the disc was just empty padding was debunked. That doesn't mean they didn't drop in a bunch of unused early versions of character models in there just for the hell of it.
- chicbicyclist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Wow, I didn't know that either. I thought the HDD was for other media and downloadable content. I didn't realize that you actually have to "install" games now. WTF?
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Oh come on. They had the developers telling anyone who would listen that the game would never have fit on a DVD-9. Look at Resistance side-by-side with Gears of War, and tell me that Resistance has double the game assets. At the very least, the Resistance developers made little to no attempt to whittle the game size down, just so they'd have a dick-measuring bullet point.
I don't see why this is so outlandish. Sony is hell-bent on convincing gamers that Blu-Ray is somehow necessary for gaming, when it's really just a format war Trojan horse for movies. It literally costs nothing extra to leave some junk on the platter, and it makes gamers think they're somehow getting a better value. - MrSidnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16They made my hungry. brb
- Kolour, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27*****, this has been debunked a while back. It is 17GB of game data, stop spreading lies.
- SeBBBe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Yeah, since it's a very well written objective article giving a fair comparison between using DVD and BD for storage of games.
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13No, but some sort of solid state medium, like a memory card. You could call it a "cartridge"...
Nah, that's way to futuristic, give it another 10 years or so. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"So assuming Sony isn't forcing developers to release games on BluRay"
You assumed incorrectly. They ARE forcing PS3 games to be released on BluRay. - Diggtatorship, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"but maybe you're reading this from the future so what do I know."
That made me laugh out loud literally. Touché monsieur. - akashra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I'm really confused if the information provided is correct. They say that you require a 1.5X BD drive to play BR movies... wtf did they base their speed rating on then!?
CDs are based on 1X being playback speed - 74 minutes for a disc, which just happens to be 150KB/second.
DVDs are the same, 1X being 133 minutes, just happening to be around 1MB/s.
So what on earth did they base the BD speeds on if a movie is considered to need 1.5x? - michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10" The results might surprise you." is usually followed by unsurprising results.
- SeBBBe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13...and how do you figure that (Im gonna assume what you said was true, because I dont feel like researching it)?
An average 16 MiB/s (it was 16, not 12) is still faster, and better, than 9 MiB/s of constant stream... - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20"Wrong. Compressed assets always load faster than their uncompressed counterparts."
That depends. It's true that the disk IO is shorter, but now you have to spend extra CPU time and memory decompressing the data. It's entirely possible that once you factor in decompression time, it takes longer to load and decompress data than it would to read the uncompressed data. It all depends on the hardware.
At any rate, the claim that "Compressed assets always load faster than their uncompressed counterparts." is absolutely false, unless you _only consider drive IO_, which is only *part* of "load time" once you introduce compression. It may be true most of the time on modern hardware, but it certainly isn't "always". Anyone who tried drive compression software in the 90's knows this. - Diggtatorship, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"it will still have the better games in the long run."
Well that pretty much makes this whole "console war" irrelevant. LISTEN UP EVERYBODY! We have now established that PS3 will have better games in the long run! Idandfei has spoken and so it must be true!!!!!
:rolls eyes: - knodi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Please Lost planet is 1080p and maps are 2x plus bigger. 7.1 + multi audio does not take up 17gigs.
@otatop
They don't provide copy of every region. They only put the multi language audio not the full disc builds. - nuvem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10What's really ironic is due to it's slow drive speed, Blu-ray stands to benefit the most from compression.
- Jergens, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12The answer doesn't "surprise me"...simply because it's on the front page of Digg. And we all know that nothing good about Blu-Ray ever gets to the front page of Digg.
Not that there IS much good about Blu-Ray, of course. - AReallyGoodName, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I just found out exactly how fast the PS3 reads DVDs.
"According to Sony's press releases, it supports DVD (8x)" [in reference to the PS3s drive]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
So it reads DVDs at 8X, or 12MB/s which is indeed a higher bitrate than the BRD speed.
I don't care so much for the politics of Sony but the fact is their console could load games faster if DVD games were to be released for it sometime in the future. - Blandyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Unable to edit my comment, but somebody already clarified the region argument.
It seems R:FoM was just pure filler. Great game, great dummy data. - chocobomog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@NipGip
If you are happy doing everything he mentioned on your $100 XBOX1 then who is to say you are wrong? He spent $600 on his "media center" and is very satisfied. How can you say he is wrong if he is happy? He actually has first hand experience with the topic at hand and is expressing it, what experience do you have?
Are you happy with the games on your XBOX1? How would you react if someone who never owned or played an XBOX1 told you you were wrong and could never be happy playing the XBOX1 because it costs $100? - SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10yeah except for watching 1080p hd content along with some other stuff. get real
- Blandyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+67.1 channels of lpcm i understand, but the 720p argument? Sorry, all 360 games are developed with 720p as a minimum requirement. Don't pull that one.
The 7.1 channel data is a valid excuse... but you also have to consider the fact that in most video-games, even Resistance: Fall of Man, you don't have that many unique sounds, at least not over the course of a game. R:FoM does have a lot, with it's wide array of weaponry and enemy diversity, but I don't think that's enough to accommodate for 13 gigs over a standard 360 game (and Lost Planet is probably not the full 8.5 gigs anyway, though very close is not unlikely).
On a related note: I read somewhere that R:FoM contained all the localization data for all regions on the same disc. I don't know if this was correct or not (never followed up on it) but if it's true, then it makes sense... but then, that doesn't answer WHY games HAVE to be on Blu-Ray, just why they should to lower manufacturer hassle... because it doesn't really cut down on costs in any way. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17Mageofdeath, Oblivion was really slow to load on PC too. When you look at what you got in the end, the wait was certainly worth it.
- otatop, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7It's because every disc has the European, US, and Japanese versions on it. The game itself is only something like 7 gigs, but multiply that by three and you can start bragging to show how much Blu-ray was "necessary."
- dr00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i really did wish i was looking at porn instead of reading that.
are you psychic? - adamchristopher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6how do you know it will have better games in the long run?
bottom line, you're out of your element Donny. - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm not surprised. I own a PSP so I know Sony doesn't care much about subjecting consumers to poor load times.
- stappawho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As for read speed, Blu-ray is constant while DVD is not. DVD basically has to warm up first (in the simplest of terms)
So while DVD has a higher max read speed, it is rarely ever realized in your typical game. It's not apples to apples. - EGOvoruhk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That was hilarious. I wish I could somehow mod you to the top
- 4g1vn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5ARS has lost credibility in my opinion.
- preachizzle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Blue Dragon for the 360 is 3 DVDs large
- iampoch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3But DJ didn't say that the CAV has a lower average transfer speed. And his point is still valid. The article assumes, or even imples, that in the DVD drive, you get 12x across the board which is highly inaccurate. It also failed to mention that you only get a max of 8x for DVD9 discs. And IMO, CLV is better than CAV since a constant read speed is maintained across the board as opposed to having a variable read speed depending on where the data is stored. More or less CAV average speed may be the same as the max speed in CLV on a single layer disc. But the problem is, the average read speed is moot point once CAV is already reading the inner portions of the discs exclusively. Also, as mentioned, CAV read has that advantage of average read speed only in single layer discs, and that drastically falls on dual-layered ones while CLV is still able to keep read speed at a constant rate.
- DJNephilim, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Marked as inaccurate.
The author of the article apparently doesn't know the difference between a CAV drive and a CLV drive. The drive in the 360 (CAV) only achieves the transfer speeds listed when it reaches it's max speed (which it only achieves when reading data from somewhere near the outer edge of the disc). The drive in the PS3 (CLV) can constantly maintain its max transfer speed regardless of where the data is stored on the disc. - Diggtatorship, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah, I can see Sony being all sorts of happy about that..... ?
- CarpeFishem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How many developers prefer the 360 over PS3, and how many developers prefer PS3 over the 360?
- AReallyGoodName, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3George you arn't explaining anything very well.
Both DVDs and BRDs store data in a spiral with the bits evenly spaced. Both read at different speeds depending on where the data is located. Both read data on the outside of the disc faster than data on the inside.
The reason people say that BluRay reads at a constant speed?
Well for a 8Gb game almost all the data can be written to the outside of the disc on a BluRay drive. That means it can appear to read at a fairly constant speed for all the data.
On an 8Gb DVD the data will take up almost the entire disc. So the differences in read speed will become more apparant as both the slow inside and fast outside is used. - staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Both DVDs and BRDs store data in a spiral with the bits evenly spaced. Both read at different speeds depending on where the data is located. Both read data on the outside of the disc faster than data on the inside."
No Blu ray are CAV drives while dvd drives are CLV. Blu ray has a constant speed period. - jacksons98, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think you just answered your own question. DVD has been out for a long time games and games are already bumping up against the barrier. X360 already has Blue Dragon out and it's 3 dvd's. As a second benefit developers don't need to compress the data if they have available space. This is more efficient for the CPU because it doesn't have to spend extra cycles decompressing. This happens every generation originally it was Cartridges are enough who needs CD, then everyone said CD is enough we don't need DVD, now it's DVD is enough. Let's see in 2-3 years if DVD is really enough :)
- iampoch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3so, you also agreed when nintendo said that the 650MB storage capacity of CD-ROMs are overkill for gaming and 30MB of cartridge space is sufficient? Oh and people, read the reader comments in the articel, with more credible contributors commenting on the inaccuracies of the title. For one, 12x is the DVD drive's max spedd and slows down to 5x in the inner ring. The BR drive has 2x constant all the way. Also the 360 DVD-R gets only mas 8x for DVD-9 games. now tell me i'm wrong that most games for the 360 are pressed in dvd9 format?
- coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Before I read anyone else's post, I'd just like to say that personally a 12 second load screen doesn't turn me off to blu-ray at all. I guess I've always been patient for games though.
I'd actually rather have 12 second or more load times than have a developer not use all of the space that's available to make the game better.
On another note, Resistance has some pretty expansive environments with quick load times and it only installs a 200 meg file. I'm sure they'll figure out a way to get around this stuff somehow in the future. - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Max speed only near the outer edge of the *1st* layer
- NipGrip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Uhm, because I spent $100 and not $600 to do the things he says he's so happy doing with that PS3. He doesn't mention any games.. He mentions using at a media center. Something my $100 XBOX softmod can do for $500 cheaper *and* I didn't even have to price gouge anyone to do it.
Oh and because I am all knowing and much smarter than you could ever dream to be X infinity. - rude0197, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
5.25 floppy vs 3.5 floppy
CD vs DVD
DVD vs HD DVD/BR
Capacity is important. Most titles DVD or BR are not played directly of the disc. -
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is