I remember reading up on the blurb about Blu-ray ages ago as they compared the pros and cons of it to those of HD-DVD. I' m sure I had read that a benefit of Blu-ray is that the discs can be read at higher speeds because the data is packed much tighter, whereas to achieve the same bit-rates, a HD-DVD would need to be spun at a higher speed.

Surely this means that Blu-Ray discs should have very short loading times? So what is the excuse for the PS3 apparently having atrociously long PS2 style loading times?

I think it' s the fault of the architects at Sony. They' re repeating the mistake they made in the design flaw of the PS2, and once again they' ve made a machine with that same flaw. They just didn' t think of improving against that and stop wasting our time with incessant loading delays.

the discs can be read at higher speeds because the data is packed much tighter, whereas to achieve the same bit-rates, a HD-DVD would need to be spun at a higher speed.

hahahahaha

The lies...

PS3 uses a 2x Blu-Ray drive with a transfer speed of 72Mbits/s or 9MB/s

Xbox 360 uses a 12x DVD with a transfer speed of 16MB/s


The thruth...

Xbox 360 uses a CAV drive. It only achieves 12x for approx 15% of the outer disc and 5x on the inner ring, with an average of approx 8x. The drive also max' s out at 8x for dual layer (DVD9) discs and so since virtually all games are on DVD9, it' s only reading at 8x maximum. While the specs for peak performance (16MB/s) are correct, it' s peak performance and not what the system operates at in general use. For most loading it only achieves a transfer rate of about 10MB/s.

PS3 on the other hand uses a CLV drive and has a transfer rate of 8-9MB/s under all circumstances.

The difference is negligible and i' m bored of the same old argument. Some 360 games have long loading times, some are blazingly fast, it will be the same for PS3.

Some PS2 games have fast load times as well, it depends on the developer.