Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

24x equivalent to 40x write speed?

Last response: in Storage
Share
April 6, 2002 5:18:01 AM

For a little while now new 40x cd writers are out and they seem to have such a high write speed. I looked at the new 40x cd writer from Asus and it says it takes 3 and a half minutes to burn a full 650mb CD. But when I look at Yamaha the 3200EZ it says it requires approximately 3 minutes to write a CD at top speed. So does anyone know whats the deal with all this???
Thanks
April 6, 2002 12:41:37 PM

Maximum theoretical speed and average speed are two different values. One drive lists maximum speed and the other average.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
April 6, 2002 2:10:19 PM

Note that while Yamaha uses a technology in its RW drives other than the other manufacturers (Partial CAV vs Zone CLV), I don't think the actual write time difference can get that high.
Related resources
April 6, 2002 2:15:23 PM

IIRC to burn at 40X means a maximum time of 1:55 minutes tops, which is pretty damn fast and nice for making 700MB CDs!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
April 6, 2002 10:08:40 PM

Ok thanks you guys.. What's IIRC??
And there is no 40x CD-R/RWs out are there?
April 6, 2002 10:22:51 PM

IIRC - If I Recall Correctly

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
April 7, 2002 1:00:32 AM

Yes there are.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
April 7, 2002 6:41:02 AM

haha man u have no idea how stupid I am but thx!.

okay is there a difference with a 2mb cache and an 8mb cache cd-writer?? I really don't know what to go for.
Yamaha has the extra features like Audio Master and 8mb of cache.. while others such as Liteon can write at 40x....
which one would you guys go for?
April 7, 2002 1:02:16 PM

Cache isn't as important as it used to be. In the days before buffer underrun protection, the bigger the cache, the less likely you'll get a buffer underrun error. Now, that the laser can realign itself even if data transfer isn't sustained for a period of time.

I'd personally go for the 40X Lite-on myself.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
April 7, 2002 5:58:49 PM

hmm. alright thanks. Well doesn't it mean that the more cache the less it will utilize your computer too? Even for hardrives for example. An 8mb cache hardrive would have better performance than 2mb..

thinking about the lite-on but that only has speed whereas yamaha has extra features....
April 11, 2002 2:14:19 AM

Cache is still important because stalls cause slowdown on burn-protected drives.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 11, 2002 9:35:39 PM

The reason it takes a 40x +- the same time to write as a 24x is that at the inside of a cd, to burn at 6MB/s it would need to spin at like 10000rpm (or something stupid) whereas the fastest (plextor only spins at 6000rpm) so it writes at 16x then 24x then 40x when it can actually write 6000kb/s at 6000rpm -midway thru the cd.

"The answer to life's problems aren't at the bottom of a beer bottle, they're on TV."
April 11, 2002 9:51:02 PM

A 40X CD-RW drive is not as fast as a 24X drive. It's about 20% faster.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
April 12, 2002 12:18:39 AM

ok ok........now this is starting to get a little confusing..... So can CD writers actually write at 40x now? when you're saying the fastest plexor only spins 6000rpm?.. Can a 24x write just as fast as a 40x?..

20% seems to be like only seconds apart...
April 19, 2002 5:18:20 AM

yes... and no :smile:

NO cd burner can burn at more than around 16x at the start of the cd due to rotation speed limitations.
As the burning process moves towards the outside of the CD it can speed the process up, which usually occurs in predetermined steps. so for a 32x drive it starts at 16x then 20x then 24x then 28x then 32x midway thru the media, so essentially 32x is the max transfer rate and the average is something lower, somewhere between 24x and 28x.



My tech advice here is not free. Email your credit card detials to mynic@hotmail.com :smile: :wink:
April 19, 2002 7:16:04 PM

Yep. I've a Yamaha with 8mb cache, and never had a BURN problem.

I see the Plextor "Plexwriter 40/12/40A" has a 4MB buffer. Taking a leaf out of Yamaha's book perhaps. I've an article in front of me with several drives tested, and the top three were:

Burn Time for 644MB/Ave Read Speed/No. CD-R errors/rating

1st. Plextor Plexwriter 40/12/40A - 3min 39sec/28.46x/0/93%

2nd. Yamaha CRW3200E-VK 24/10/40 - 3min 50sec/27.3x/202/92%

3rd. Plextor Plexwriter 24/10/40U - 4min 4sec/28.49x/73/87%

Notice how the 1st place has no errors on these tests. BTW the 3rd place drive is an external USB 2.0 type. Looks like Plextor still holds the King of CD drives title.

<b><font color=blue>~ What do you mean "It isn't working!"...Now where's my sonic screwdriver? ~ </font color=blue></b>
April 19, 2002 10:39:12 PM

WOW did you notice that the SCSI version of that Yamaha drive is WELL OVER TWICE the price of the IDE version?

Well, it sound's like calling a writer 40x is very deceiving to customers since it's only burning at the same speed as the 24x drive.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 19, 2002 10:47:58 PM

Thx OldBear for the site
Well after I read the CDRinfo site I now understand how the writing speed works..

But I'm wondering now how you can get 202 CD-R errors with the Yamaha 3200E-VK........
April 19, 2002 10:48:00 PM

Hmm so what's the advantage of using a SCSI burner over IDE?
Are you saying by using SCSI that you will stay constantly at 24x?...
April 19, 2002 11:00:42 PM

Yes indeed.

The article also states:

"using the same brand of CD-R each time"

I wonder what speed of CD-R they used?

Do you get 40x media?

Hmmm. I've never seen 24x media for that matter.

The price is a bit much, isn't it. The USB 2.0 is about £35 more, which isn't too much to ask for a mobile CD-RW drive, but for the SCSI version? Short of having no spare IDE ports, I'd never go fo it.

<b><font color=blue>~ What do you mean "It isn't working!"...Now where's my sonic screwdriver? ~ </font color=blue></b>
April 20, 2002 1:14:13 AM

24x and 32x brand name media is becoming commom now for about the same price ($25 U.S.) but I have
not seen any faster media locally.



:smile: <b><font color=green> I took an I.Q. test today...It came back negative.</font color=green></b> :lol: 
April 20, 2002 6:09:45 AM

No. What I'm saying is that the 24x SCSI drive is overpriced. The advantages of SCSI are numerous, but not always worth the cost.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 20, 2002 7:20:52 AM

The standard in U.K. seems to be 8x for cheap media or 16x for more cash. Most are happy with 8x for now (My Dad still uses an old 2x RW drive, groan!).

<b><font color=blue>~ What do you mean "It isn't working!"...Now where's my sonic screwdriver? ~ </font color=blue></b>
April 20, 2002 8:30:15 PM

Haha of course it's overpriced... To me, I believe anything using the SCSI interface is overpriced right now...

But okay there are advantages with SCSI.. Would you have any idea what the advantages are for a CD-Writer with SCSI?.. Does it write any faster? Probably utilizes less.. and that's all I know..
April 20, 2002 9:10:40 PM

Sometimes it writes faster due to fewer interuptions. It used to be the only way to get around underruns in some systems, but with burn proof available, it's still a good way to get around "needing" burnproof. My friends 24x writer, for example, will automatically kick down to a slower speed if too many underruns are being corrected. And each time you get an underrun correction, it pauses the burn to fill up the buffer.
Yes, there is less CPU utilization, and only 1 IRQ is needed to support as many devices as the adapter supports. Current adapters are supporting 15 devices per channel, and up to three channels. So you can run 45 devices on one IRQ.
Once upon a time SCSI devices proliferated: you could have SCSI scanners, printers, and even cameras attached to your card, along with as many drives as you wished, all using one IRQ with no stress to the CPU. Ah, but everyone went to IDE and USB. USB sux. IDE has too many limitations. SCSI should have prevailed, it would have eventually left us with one connector for almost everything, has it not stalled in the marketplace. Oh well, it's still handy for some things.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 20, 2002 11:59:39 PM

Well lets say you're using a pretty good computer like a P4 2.2GHz and 1gig RDRAM.. now would this still cause any interuptions?.. sorry I'm new in this field.. but how do you get underruns and CD-R errors?? By reading camieabz post showing the top 3 burners I don't get how you can get 202 CD-R errors.... not even 1!.. with a Yamaha!


Hehe that's right. Good story and should've been that way.. But to really think about it how many people really need this much performance?.. I mean who would ever use more than 15 devices?? unless they got some giant raid thing going... So USB 2.0 didn't make a big difference with 1.1?..
April 21, 2002 12:43:02 AM

If IDE hadn't been the thorn in the side of SCSI, we wouldn't need USB2.0, Firewire, etc. Early on, SCSI was expensive to manufacture, now the parts cost is about $3 more. But companies didn't wait for the cost of the chip to drop, they switched to IDE instead. Which spelled the demise of SCSI scanners, cameras, printers, etc. Fiber channel is a subset of SCSI and, had SCSI become more popular, would have been used where USB and Firewire are today.
So most people would have done well with a two channel SCSI card, instead of a two channel IDE interface.

As for errors, I don't think all drives record the error every time BURN-PROOF is used to correct one. But 202 occurances on an IDE drive at such a high speed makes perfect sense to me.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 21, 2002 1:34:33 AM

Ahh I see.. Thanks for the info. But isn't it more convient with USB? I mean you don't really have to configure anything much and all you do is plug it in and your set.. Whereas SCSI you'll have to buy a scuzzy and configure it. But SCSI is still too expensive now and that's why IDE is more popular... Aren't they going to try to make IDE in a parallel or something like that?..

Okay so you're saying that burning at such a high speed will cause CD-R errors on them? and BURN-PROOF corrects them?..
How would the Plextor not have one single error then if it's burning even faster than the Yamaha?
April 21, 2002 4:36:45 AM

I don't know, unless the errors are not reported. You will usually have burns at high speeds with IDE, because it only takes a second for the buffer to dump.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 21, 2002 5:46:50 AM

Hmm alright then.. Guess as long as you have a fast enough CD or DVD-Rom drive and good computer you wouldn't have any problems..
Looking again at the top 3 burners Yamaha was behind by 11 seconds at 24x while plextor 40x... Does this mean Yamaha is just about equivalent to a 40x CD writer?...
April 21, 2002 11:08:54 AM

No, you are still forgetting what CD-R media was used. The article doesn't state the speed of the media. If it was 16x media, then both drives could only have written it at 16x.

As I mentioned before, the article said they used <b>the same brand of CD-R</b> each time. Does this mean the same speed? I would guess 40x media wasn't used for the 40x drives.

I do think the '0' errors for the IDE Plextor drive are due to the quality of the drive. It does have a 4MB buffer versus the 8MB of the Yamaha. It surely has to be a quality issue, as greater or equal speed was achieved.

<b><font color=blue>~ What do you mean "It isn't working!"...Now where's my sonic screwdriver? ~ </font color=blue></b>
April 21, 2002 3:52:23 PM

Opps sorry my mistake.
You remember or know where you got this article?...
if that's the case then it's unknown for sure what the speed of the CD-R was used each time because you can have the same brand of CD-R at different write speeds..

Not too sure on the errors, I mean Yamaha has a 8mb buffer which is double the Plextor and also I think by using any new computer like a P4 2GHz with lots of ram shouldn't cause any under runs at all..
April 21, 2002 5:55:38 PM

Exactly!

Less buffer + less errors must = more quality.

Or at least that's how I interpret it.

The article was from the April edition of the Brit magazine "<A HREF="http://www.pcformat.co.uk/" target="_new">PCFormat</A>".

I don't know if you'll find it at the site, as they don't post all their magazine reviews online.

<b><font color=blue>~ What do you mean "It isn't working!"...Now where's my sonic screwdriver? ~ </font color=blue></b>
April 21, 2002 6:24:00 PM

Actually yes, it means the 40x writer is lagging, I believe the 40x is a variable speed writer that writes at a max speed of 40x and an average speed about the same as the 24x.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 21, 2002 11:02:01 PM

how do you get less errors?
Couldn't find the article but thx for the site anyways camieabz.

Crashman you made a good point..
By looking at the post RaPTuRe posted he said that fastest Plextor spins at 6000rpm making it go from 16x to 24x then 40x.. Now with Yamaha 3200E series there writing speed starts at 18x then jumps to a stable 24x... So I believe Yamaha has the faster start then Plextor making the total time to write speed just about equivalent to the 40x.. The only thing I'm not getting is the amount of CD-R that occurs on the Yamaha... With 8mb of buffer memory it should be at least 2x more preventable of getting a CD-R error compared to a Plextor with 4mb.. This is the only part that doesn't make sense to me.. Other than that in my opinion I would say Yamaha is better than Plextor...
April 22, 2002 3:24:43 AM

IT's always possible that since the Yamaha writes the more sensitive part of the disk at a higher speed, that greater speed induced errors?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 22, 2002 5:35:07 AM

Maybe.. Never know for sure unless Tom or someone does a full review on the new burners and test them all out..
But I'm hoping Yamaha will come out with a new CD burner soon.. and maybe it wouldn't have any errors at all..
April 22, 2002 6:59:28 AM

it might not be a flaw in the burner, but rather the disk inability to be writen at 18x in that sensitive area.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 22, 2002 10:23:02 PM

so are you saying it could be the cd media?..
April 23, 2002 1:41:53 AM

I'm saying that the outer edges are the spot that gets written at the slowest speed, and that the slowest speed on the Yamaha is faster than the slowest speed on the Plextor. Since the Plextor wrote at full speed without errors and the Yamaha wrote at full speed with errors corrected, if not for the errors the Yamaha may have been faster than the Plextor. At any rate, the media may be limitted to 16x writes at the outer edge.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 23, 2002 3:01:30 AM

Oh.. I see. Alright I get it now. Even the high quality media would be limited at 16x at the outer edges?..

Anyways is there 40x media out already? and if there are, are they going to write any faster than as of a 24x?..
By looking right now at the 24x and 40x burners I don't see much more than 10-15 seconds faster or so, even buying a 24x CD-writer would be almost as fast as a 40x right?
April 23, 2002 3:47:23 AM

Quote:
I'm saying that the outer edges are the spot that gets written at the slowest speed

Actually, Crashman, you have it backward. CD read speeds are determined by the rotational speed (v) times 2x the radius at the read point (r) times pi(ð) times the density (d) of the disc in bytes (2ðvrd). This means that as the heads get farther from the center of the disc, data is read <i>faster</i> not slower.

For music playback and slower speed (<16x) writing the drive uses CLV (constant linear velocity) to ensure that the speed remains the same. To prevent the disc read/write speed from slowly increasing as the heads move toward the outside of the disc, the drive will spin slower and slower until they reach the outside edge. For CD-RW's over 16x, we run into a problem. The slowest part of the disc is the inside edge. Even at 6000RPM, the disc is limited to 16x write speed in the middle. The disc will spin fast to maintain CLV at 16x write speed until it gets a certain distance from the center of the disc (remember it has been slowing down the whole time). It will then spin faster to enable a 24x CLV speed until it can do 40X. At this point, the drive spins back up to its maximum speed to attain 40x write. It then maintains CLV to the outer edge. This is a stepped approach called Zone CLV.

Some other drives simply write at maximum RPMs and allow the write speed to increase (CAV - constant angular velocity) until the maximum write speed (40x) is attained, then they maintain CLV to the outer edge of the disc (slowing down from that point on). This is called Partial CAV.

To test this, get a CD music player/walkman/CD-RW that has a window that allows you to see the spinning disk. Play the first track (center) and you will notice that the disc spins fast. Then play the last track (outside edge) - you'll notice the disc spins significantly slower - but the music maintains the same rate.

If the thought I thought I thought had been the thought I thought, I wouldn't have thought so much.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ath0mps0 on 04/27/02 12:22 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 23, 2002 4:36:41 AM

Actually ath0mps0 has it right, but anyway, most media can be burned at higher speed than it's rated for, I used to burn 4x media at 8x back in the day.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 23, 2002 11:16:49 PM

Hmm alright. But wouldn't you be more likely to get a error on the CD then?..
April 23, 2002 11:27:53 PM

The one that writes the inner tracks at the highest speed is the one most likely to have errors.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 23, 2002 11:59:16 PM

So putting it in laymans terms for the less gifted, brains wise*, the Plextor is a higher quality drive?

* My opinion. Keep yours to yourself please. :smile:

<b><font color=blue>~ What do you mean "It isn't working!"...Now where's my sonic screwdriver? ~ </font color=blue></b>
April 24, 2002 3:11:52 AM

LMAO, if that were true, it ("40x" yeh right) would write noticably faster than the Yamaha 24x. Instead it could simply be a problem with the media not writing well at 18x on the inner edge.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 24, 2002 3:14:24 AM

Alright then.

Well would Yamaha have the errors because it's writing speed starts at 18x? since you guys were saying that 16x was limited from the inner edge?..

Not sure if that's right but if it is then Plextor is the best then for now...
who knows maybe Yamaha will come out with a new 40x writer that will be even better than Plextor..
April 24, 2002 3:23:29 AM

I'd get the Plextor simply because it's cheap! I'd say they are both good writers, just that Plextor cheats on the speed grading a little more than Yamaha. But being of similar price, it's probably still a better deal.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
!