« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic: CD-R's  (Read 1550 times)

Keranu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9054
CD-R's
« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2005, 09:57:33 AM »
I love how the Duo can have fast loading time at times, but every now and then there will be a moment where it's loading something for an awfully long time.
Logged
Quote from: Bonknuts
Adding PCE console specific layer on top of that, makes for an interesting challenge (no, not a reference to Ys II).

NEC Avenue

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
CD-R's
« Reply #31 on: July 28, 2005, 05:54:19 PM »
Look guys, the original System 1.0 CD had less memory than System 2.0, did you forget about this? The DUO had the system 2.0 integrated into the console. The system 2.0 had more memory so it makes perfect sense that the newer system 2.0 included a 2x CD drive than the system 1.0's 1x CD.

In fact if you look into the CD window of the DUO while it's playing a game the speed of the CD is faster than the original TG16CD. You can see the CD labels spin faster.

Again 256k thing has nothing to do with not requiring a 2x CD drive. The games took decades to load on the orginial system 1.0 card, but according to your logic since it only has a little amount of RAM you didn't need a faster drive. According to your logic the game should be able to load in 2 seconds at 150kb/s... :roll:
Logged

GUTS

  • Guest
CD-R's
« Reply #32 on: July 28, 2005, 06:02:23 PM »
Yeah but don't you think it's a little odd that you're the only guy on the entire internet who thinks the duo has a 2x cdrom?
Logged

NEC Avenue

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
CD-R's
« Reply #33 on: July 28, 2005, 06:13:33 PM »
Quote from: "GUTS"
Yeah but don't you think it's a little odd that you're the only guy on the entire internet who thinks the duo has a 2x cdrom?


I don't think it's odd, I just think people have been believing in urban legends. :wink:
Logged

nodtveidt

  • Guest
CD-R's
« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2005, 06:23:13 PM »
Quote from: "NEC Avenue"
Look guys, the original System 1.0 CD had less memory than System 2.0, did you forget about this? The DUO had the system 2.0 integrated into the console. The system 2.0 had more memory so it makes perfect sense that the newer system 2.0 included a 2x CD drive than the system 1.0's 1x CD.

In fact if you look into the CD window of the DUO while it's playing a game the speed of the CD is faster than the original TG16CD. You can see the CD labels spin faster.

Again 256k thing has nothing to do with not requiring a 2x CD drive. The games took decades to load on the orginial system 1.0 card, but according to your logic since it only has a little amount of RAM you didn't need a faster drive. According to your logic the game should be able to load in 2 seconds at 150kb/s... :roll:

A little snippy, aren't we? :roll: System 1.0 wasn't released in the US afaik, we got System 2.0 and then System 3.0 in the Duo. And everyone knows that the original unit had less memory, hence the massive hype when the 3.0 system was being primed for release stateside.

Don't forget about seek time by the way...I have no solid specs or information on the laser seek time but it's obvious that the Duo's head moved faster, since it was a later model CDROM and technology had certainly improved by then (you can hear the thing move slowly on the original CDROM unit but it was quite fast on the Duo, and I'm sure that this too contributes to the perceived speedup). I never noticed games in the Duo spinning faster than the regular CDROM, but I did notice the obvious fact that discs spin faster or slower depending on where the head was. I don't remember games loading any faster or slower on either setup, frankly...the system always loaded pretty fast for 64k and 256k games. I'll run some tests myself once I get my setup working. It may be a 2x drive in the Duo (unlikely) and it may not be (more likely), we shall see, but my original point, which you were very quick to dismiss, is still valid...the Duo drive has a quicker spinup than the original CDROM unit NEC used and that contributes to the perceived difference in speed that some people have.

Incorrect information does often get passed around (anyone remember the "betting the powerup items" in half of the Internet sites' description of Ninja Spirit? or half of everyone calling it "Martial Champions" instead of its real name, "Martial Champion"?) but I'm pretty sure that after all these years, what's known is known...
Logged

NEC Avenue

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
CD-R's
« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2005, 06:38:33 PM »
Quote
System 1.0 wasn't released in the US afaik, we got System 2.0 and then System 3.0 in the Duo. And everyone knows that the original unit had less memory, hence the massive hype when the 3.0 system was being primed for release stateside.


It was a long time ago, but yeah thanks for the correction. Regardless the point still stands->more memory so 2x CD makes more sense.
Logged

nodtveidt

  • Guest
CD-R's
« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2005, 06:53:35 PM »
OK we get the point...you think it's a 2x. I still haven't seen any proof of this, so I'm just gonna let you believe what you believe and drop the subject because it's not exactly a pressing issue. They load at 32x in Magic Engine on my PC and even faster when booted using Daemon Tools. :D
Logged

NEC Avenue

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
CD-R's
« Reply #37 on: July 28, 2005, 07:39:00 PM »
:D
Logged

twor2005

  • Guest
CD-R's
« Reply #38 on: July 28, 2005, 10:02:30 PM »
I'm in the process of scanning old magazines that feature the Duo. Rest assured the CD ROM in the Duo is double speed and I will post the relevant clippings when I find them.

When I finally got the Duo I was expecting much faster load times due to the double speed CD ROM, and was pretty surprised not to get them in a terribly pronounced way.
Logged

jaffo

  • Guest
CD-R's
« Reply #39 on: July 29, 2005, 06:31:22 AM »
I'm no expert on the subject, but I remember "back in the day" when I was debating on whether to get the duo or the sega CD - I was seriously considering the duo because of the PC interface I had heard about  (my computer at the time did not have a CD rom drive).  I had a few flyers about it and had seen some of the aforementioned magazine articles and ads.  I really do remember hearing that the duo had a 2x cd rom drive.  

Well - I ended up making the wrong decision and purchased the sega CD - didn't get my duo till much later.  But I did get an awesome deal on the duo when I got it :)

just my $0.02
Logged

zborgerd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
CD-R's
« Reply #40 on: July 30, 2005, 04:40:15 AM »
Quote from: "NEC Avenue"
Quote
System 1.0 wasn't released in the US afaik, we got System 2.0 and then System 3.0 in the Duo. And everyone knows that the original unit had less memory, hence the massive hype when the 3.0 system was being primed for release stateside.


It was a long time ago, but yeah thanks for the correction. Regardless the point still stands->more memory so 2x CD makes more sense.


The read speed of the drive has absolutely nothing to do with the memory in the system card.
Logged

NEC Avenue

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
CD-R's
« Reply #41 on: July 30, 2005, 06:14:24 AM »
Quote from: "zborgerd"
Quote from: "NEC Avenue"
Quote
System 1.0 wasn't released in the US afaik, we got System 2.0 and then System 3.0 in the Duo. And everyone knows that the original unit had less memory, hence the massive hype when the 3.0 system was being primed for release stateside.


It was a long time ago, but yeah thanks for the correction. Regardless the point still stands->more memory so 2x CD makes more sense.


The read speed of the drive has absolutely nothing to do with the memory in the system card.


care to elaborate?
Logged

zborgerd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
CD-R's
« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2005, 09:56:59 AM »
Quote from: "NEC Avenue"

care to elaborate?


Certainly.

A single speed CDROM drive has a read speed of 150 KBps.  That's about 9MB per minute.  A standard 74 minute CDROM is about 650.3 MB in total available data storage capacity.  The speed is relative to music playback time.  At 1x, it will take you about 74 minutes to play the entire audio content of a standard CDROM.

This is what it means to have a "1x" CDROM drive.  A "2x" drive is simply twice that, under optimal conditions.

The TurboGrafx 16 (USA) came with a System 2.0 card.  This is merely a BIOS and scratch space to store data that is cached off of the CDROM drive.  It is possible to achieve the same performance as a DUO system when upgrading to a System 3.0 card.  The DUO system has essentially the same functionality as a System 3.0 card internally.  No additional card or upgrade is needed.

No matter what, in spite of the "memory upgrade" of the System cards in question, you *can not* increase the maximum read speed of the CDROM drive.  It's not designed to operate any faster than it already does.  That said, it's possible to cache more data into a System 3.0 card, requiring less access to the CDROM drive for general game data.
Logged

NEC Avenue

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
CD-R's
« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2005, 07:17:03 PM »
Quote from: "zborgerd"
Quote from: "NEC Avenue"

care to elaborate?


Certainly.

A single speed CDROM drive has a read speed of 150 KBps.  That's about 9MB per minute.  A standard 74 minute CDROM is about 650.3 MB in total available data storage capacity.  The speed is relative to music playback time.  At 1x, it will take you about 74 minutes to play the entire audio content of a standard CDROM.

This is what it means to have a "1x" CDROM drive.  A "2x" drive is simply twice that, under optimal conditions.

The TurboGrafx 16 (USA) came with a System 2.0 card.  This is merely a BIOS and scratch space to store data that is cached off of the CDROM drive.  It is possible to achieve the same performance as a DUO system when upgrading to a System 3.0 card.  The DUO system has essentially the same functionality as a System 3.0 card internally.  No additional card or upgrade is needed.

No matter what, in spite of the "memory upgrade" of the System cards in question, you *can not* increase the maximum read speed of the CDROM drive.  It's not designed to operate any faster than it already does.  That said, it's possible to cache more data into a System 3.0 card, requiring less access to the CDROM drive for general game data.


So basically you just proved my point. It's a cache buffer for the CDROM. To fill up the larger memory buffer in the same amount of time requires a faster CDROM. This is exactly why I asked why 256k of RAM was brought up as an argument. Oh btw nobody said more memory from the System 3.0 means it can magically increase the speed of the CD drive. What was said is that if you have more buffer to fillup, it makes more sense to have a faster drive to fill up this larger buffer hence the 2x drive found in DUO. A TG16CD with a System 3.0 card will take twice as long to fill up the memory buffer than the DUO.
Logged

zborgerd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
CD-R's
« Reply #44 on: July 31, 2005, 10:09:56 AM »
Quote from: "NEC Avenue"

So basically you just proved my point. It's a cache buffer for the CDROM. To fill up the larger memory buffer in the same amount of time requires a faster CDROM. This is exactly why I asked why 256k of RAM was brought up as an argument. Oh btw nobody said more memory from the System 3.0 means it can magically increase the speed of the CD drive. What was said is that if you have more buffer to fillup, it makes more sense to have a faster drive to fill up this larger buffer hence the 2x drive found in DUO. A TG16CD with a System 3.0 card will take twice as long to fill up the memory buffer than the DUO.


I didn't prove your point at all.  You're talking out of your ass.  This memory upgrade does not make it a 2x drive.  What part of that do you not understand?  You're simply trying to make your concept of a 2x drive less asinine.

Adding more cache memory to a 7,200 RPM hard drive does not give you a 10,000RPM hard drive just as adding more memory to a game system does not double the rate at which the drive spins and data is read from the CDROM.  Stop trying to invent new laws of physics.

By your logic, one of the drives on this site is a 96x CDROM reader:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16827130043

And the other is a 48x CDROM reader:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16827136050

Because it has half as much cache memory.  Please...  Don't even try to argue this point anymore, because it's just retarded.

Next time I buy a CD burner, I'll be sure to get the one with more cache memory, because it'll most certainly be twice as fast (bacause you say so).
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
« previous next »