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
Write Tests (cont'd)
The DVR-108D, ND-3500A, and the GSA-4160B couldn't make it to the 8x mark as did most of the other drives. Though Ritek is one of the higher quality media like MCC, those drives still had some trouble working at the media's rated write speeds. The DDW-163 performed the best with the R03 media at 10.20X speeds while BenQ's DW1620 could not write to the disc at all.
Sony's DRU-710A and BenQ's DW1620 were the only drives capable of writing to MCC 004 media at 16x speeds using the CAV write method. All other drives were either not capable of handling this media at the full 16x speed or choked on it from the beginning. The GSA-4160B made it to 14X but couldn't hold it until the end of the write and the 108D topped out at 12X with its Z-CLV method of writing.
With the 16x Ritek media Nu Tech's DDW-163 was the only drive that would cooperate and push the speeds to 16x. All other drives either burned the 16x media at 4X or could not write to it at all. Ritek is not the largest MID available, but we were a little surprised to see so few burners actually capable of proper write descriptors. New firmware revisions will fix this issue in our other burners, but for the time being we were slightly dissapointed.
The only drives that burned coasters with dual layer media were Sony's DRU-710A and MSI's DR16-B. The rest all burned the dual layer media at around 2.4X while the DVR-108D and ND-3500A burned at about 4X speeds.
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