# I found out that 52x isn't the fastest. Should I get a 56x?



## ADE (Aug 6, 2006)

OK, I hate loading screens and I'm sure you do too. If you play games like FEAR then you most likily know the CD has secure ROM protection which means you can't use a vertual drive. So vetual drives are out of the question. Knowing this CD speed means a lot. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to get a 56x and do you think it would see better resolts than a 52x?


----------



## Bobo (Aug 6, 2006)

You are not going to notice a difference at all over 52x.


----------



## ADE (Aug 6, 2006)

well, I just did a little research and I found that the normal data rate for 52x is about 7mb/s, and that for a 56x is about 8mb/s and can burst at 33mb/s. BUt what I also look for is access time. Can someone tell me if 90ms access time is good? If not, then is 80ms good?-(access time)


----------



## Bobo (Aug 6, 2006)

Like I said, you are not going to notice a difference in game playing.  The CD speed has almost no affect on the game play, as long as it is above around 20x.


----------



## bball4life (Aug 6, 2006)

Bobo said:


> Like I said, you are not going to notice a difference in game playing.  The CD speed has almost no affect on the game play, as long as it is above around 20x.


Ya your cd drive is working that hard when it is running a game off of a cd.  And when it comes to loading maps and stuff the loading speed is affected by your hard drive speed and sometimes even how much ram you have.


----------



## ChrisDVD (Aug 6, 2006)

i thong the speed is more for writting..... reading is far easier.


----------



## bball4life (Aug 6, 2006)

ChrisDVD said:


> i thong the speed is more for writting..... reading is far easier.


Ya, I believe that is normally when people refer to their speeds, however cd and dvd drives also have read speeds, which normally are about the same as their write speeds if they have that capability.


----------



## ChrisDVD (Aug 6, 2006)

i know my ol dPC downstairs has a only a DC reader, and its an 52x. nothing grwat though


----------



## dave597 (Aug 6, 2006)

ur gonna set ur drive on fire!


----------



## ChrisDVD (Aug 6, 2006)

wooo! lol. i doubt it. I pretty much only use my drive for music.


----------



## dave597 (Aug 6, 2006)

lol j/k it would be better to get a quieter drive for listening to audio cds and 52x is fast enough for ripping


----------



## ChrisDVD (Aug 6, 2006)

ya. its works well. its an 8 year old PC, so it did quite good its job. but it can't live witout the drive i have now, its way more useful lol.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 7, 2006)

The CD Drive in modern games is only used for the install of the game, and used to make sure that you have the correct CD in when you play the game.  It doesn't load files from the CD when you startup a game or go to the next level, it's copying files from the Hard Drive.  And as bobo said, the difference between 52x and 56x is almost not even noticable.


----------



## ADE (Aug 7, 2006)

OK, well I do TONS of ripping with any format of CD. If I dod 700MB at one time, it would be like 40 Seconds faster to have 56x than a 52x right?


----------



## Geoff (Aug 7, 2006)

ADE said:


> OK, well I do TONS of ripping with any format of CD. If I dod 700MB at one time, it would be like 40 Seconds faster to have 56x than a 52x right?



If you have media that can be read/written at 56x speeds... then hypothetically, yes.


----------



## ChrisDVD (Aug 7, 2006)

thing is, will the softwear support 56x? if not then its useless.


----------



## bball4life (Aug 7, 2006)

Ya i don't even know if they have 56x media yet.


----------



## ADE (Aug 7, 2006)

Thats odd... I thought that a CD can be read at any speed, it just depends on how fast the Drive can read... so I thoght. Although, 56x has been out for years (about 4 to my knolage).


----------



## bball4life (Aug 7, 2006)

i meant media that can be written at 56x speeds.


----------



## ADE (Aug 7, 2006)

OOOOHHHHHHH. Now ya tell me  The 56x drives are only CD-ROM.   Sorry I didn't say earlier. I used to use a 56x (best thing that happened to mediocre upgrades) But then I got a MAD DOG DVD-RW and when I tried to burn a RW DVD, it wouldn't work. had to sacrifice my beloved 56x. But now I'm on the hunt for a new one that will not cause conflicts.


----------



## Starman* (Aug 7, 2006)

Minor point probably of no interest, but the drive speed is just the max the drive can do at the outside edge of the disk.  For a 52x read at the inner edge, the disk would have to spin at around 27,000rpm.  At that speed you would need a vacuum cleaner to remove the disk from the drive!

Starman*


----------



## dave597 (Aug 7, 2006)

actualy on mythbusters any disc spinning that fast would destroy itself


----------



## bball4life (Aug 8, 2006)

dave597 said:


> actualy on mythbusters any disc spinning that fast would destroy itself


Haha mythbusters.  Gotta be one of the best shows ever. 

And yet can be surprisingly educational.


----------



## ADE (Aug 8, 2006)

Agreed. Now a-days the truth can be dangerous. Even for Cd's. Although when Cd's first came out it was said that they were indistructable. The did stuff like put it in washing machines and stuff to show that they would withstand anything (that's what they thought at the time).


----------



## The_Other_One (Aug 8, 2006)

You guys do know about the 72x drive that came out a few years ago, right?


----------



## bball4life (Aug 8, 2006)

The_Other_One said:


> You guys do know about the 72x drive that came out a few years ago, right?


Now I do, but there is obviously a reason why its not around anymore.  And here is part of the reason.  It may spin faster but it reads a lot slower.


----------



## The_Other_One (Aug 8, 2006)

I beg to differ with those speeds,  If you read about the drive, you'll see more how it works.  Most benchmarks show it going much faster than that.  Also, if I remember correctly, it's not a true 72x drive when you think about RPMs.  Rather, it spins at slower speeds and basically has 7 beams used to read.


----------



## bball4life (Aug 8, 2006)

The_Other_One said:


> I beg to differ with those speeds,  If you read about the drive, you'll see more how it works.  Most benchmarks show it going much faster than that.  Also, if I remember correctly, it's not a true 72x drive when you think about RPMs.  Rather, it spins at slower speeds and basically has 7 beams used to read.


Still, its not really woth the price, and I did read it what benchmarks show it faster?  I mean its a good idea to minimize sound, and the 7 beams would probably more effective in getting faster read times, but still.  There is no need for a 72x drive.


----------



## The_Other_One (Aug 8, 2006)

I never said it was worth the price, just saying there's a faster drive out there


----------



## bball4life (Aug 8, 2006)

The_Other_One said:


> I never said it was worth the price, just saying there's a faster drive out there


Got it.  Thanks for enlightining us all.


----------



## The_Other_One (Aug 8, 2006)

No prob 

Hey, I bet this is one on ebay...  Less than $15 shipped.

http://cgi.ebay.com/KENWOOD-MULTI-B...ameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting


----------



## bball4life (Aug 8, 2006)

It looks like one but I think it is too old, I though I saw the 72x ones were released in November 1999 not July.


----------

