Fall 2004 DVDR Roundup: Dual Layer and 16X DVD+R
by Anand Shimpi & Virginia Lee on November 1, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Read Tests/Seek Times
For our CD read and seek time tests, we used a CD-ROM filled with 700MB of data on all of the competitors.
Though the NEC ND-3500A had an excellent performance in CD and DVD read and write speeds and quality, the average CD seek time was the second longest compared to the rest of the drives at 125ms. Pioneer's DVR-108D averaged at about a 131ms seek time. The quickest drives were the DW1620 and MSI's DR16-B.
As for the DVD seek time tests we used a DVD-Video, specifically "The Matrix".
The results for DVD seek times were the same, with the Pioneer unit being the slowest at 134ms and Nu Tech's DDW-163 coming in at first at 94ms.
Now let's take a look at how quickly our drives could read a DVD in measures of read speed.
From our results, it is obvious once again that the ND-3500A reads not only CD media, but also DVD 4.5GB media, the fastest at an average of 11.05X. The slowest was Sony's DRU-710A, which reported an average 6.13X speeds. How will the ND-3500A perform with 9GB DVD media?
There has been quite a bit of change from 4.5GB DVD read speeds. With a 9GB DVD, the Pioneer DVR-108D comes out on top at an average read speed of 9.40X while, surprisingly, MSI's DR16-B comes in second at 7.56X on average. The NEC does not do as well this time, coming in second to last with a 5.88X read speed, slightly better than the last place Nu Tech DDW-163's 5.34X average speed.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
Maverick215 - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link
1) where are the 8x disc quality tests, it seems you only did -r, 16x, and DL2) who cares about DL at $10 a disc I have to quote you, "read/write capabilities are not really useful in applications for the common end user."
3) who cares about 16x
a)it's not readily available
b) will likely be more expensive when it is
c) no realized speed improvement (your review states 11.9x max for 16x and 11.88 max for 8x media @ 12x (again we don't know the burn quality of this 8x@12 burn but you gave the result)
given these I'd have to say "read/write capabilities are not really useful in applications for the common end user." again.
----
And to just take one drive here, the benq, you used a BETA firmware, it might be fair if you used a BETA of a upcoming release, but you used a BETA that is 3 public releases and atleast 5 weeks old. you consider NEC more mature, why not give Benq etc a chance to mature? At the very least you could say all burners were updated as of xyz date, at least we would have a reference point. And we could then understand that infact you started doing this comparison 5 weeks ago.
----
That minor point aside. If you really care what is applicable to the "common end user" then why not more 8x media with the price of said media and then that media's burn quality tests(16x has a use here in comparing burn quality). 8x is what's most readily available, 8x@12x is comparable burn speed to 16x.
Sorry but this review just leaves me with an empty feeling. Perhaps I am alone in my opinion, but I can live with that.
Reflex - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link
Nice to know I made the right choice a month and a half ago when I grabbed the 3500A. It wasn't anything more than me looking for a bargain for a Media Center PC, so I just lucked into the best drive it appears.BTW, where do you find the latest firmware for this stuff? And are there any good reccomendations on softare, seeing as OEM drives don't come with it usually...
AkumaX - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link
don't really care about speed, but which burner has the best COMPATIBILITY and RELIABILITY in terms of burning? the 108D or the 3500A or something else?mkruer - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link
So I take it DVD+R/RW won the format wars. BTW that would be a good article in itself. Why IS there a difference between the two formats (that’s -R vs +R)KristopherKubicki - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link
Most of the drives we reviewed are the OEM versions - they pretty much all look identical (flat, beige/black, one button).Kristopher
PuravSanghani - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link
OCedHrt: Errors have been fixed for your viewing pleasure :)Operandi - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link
xsilver: If the drive is a re-badge then just say so in the artical, I don't think a picture is required.My point is simply that if your going get pics of the drives you should be taking pics of the portion people will be looking at. Other pics are fine but not geing bezel shoots dosn't make any sense to me.
OCedHrt - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link
Hmm dunno how to edit. The CD-R write speed for the Pioneer between the graph and the table at the end is also different.OCedHrt - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link
The description for the Ritek G05 read test doesn't match the graph at all. One of them is wrong.xsilver - Monday, November 1, 2004 - link
I think the circuit pcb thing is a good idea -- some drives a just rebadges of other drives? (asus?) so to tell you look that the pcb / insides