For an overview on methodology, click here.
CD-ROM Performance Results
Low-Level Measurements
|
| |
|---|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As expected, the CRX1600L yielded nearly identical performance to its ATAPI brother in our low-level measures. In fact, both sequential transfer rates (STR) and access times were a hair faster than the CRX160E. Again, access times were considerably faster than spec, while STRs were right on the money.
It's worth noting in the interface burst measures that the conversion from ATAPI to IEEE 1394 appears to incur a bit of overhead. Maximum burst rates are limited to the drive's STR maximum of 4.8 MB/sec, 14% slower than the pure ATAPI interface on the CRX160E. Also, there is a quantifiable increase in CPU utilization according to CD Winbench 99. While the 3.7% figure we measured in our testing is still quite low in absolute terms, it does show a hit of almost 25% over the CRX160E.
CD-ROM Winmark 99
|
|
|---|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The CRX1600L averages 1068 in our Winmark test, less than 2% faster than the CRX160E. As in our original analysis of the CRX160E, we are disappointed at this score. The CD-ROM Winmark test generally favors quick access times, which both Sonys have. Yet, other drives with equal STR and slower measured access times yield performance on par with, or in some cases, slightly better than the Sonys.
File and Disc Copy
|
File Copy |
|---|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disc Copy |
|---|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So far in our read tests, the CRX1600L has fared slightly better than the CRX160E in most areas. Though the difference is insignificant, the external Sony again edges its brother. In the sequential File Copy test, the CRX1600L clocks in 1% faster. This puts it in 2nd place in our comparison, 1% behind the Plextor 12/10/32 SCSI.
Likewise, in the Disc Copy test, the CRX1600L again edges its brother. They share last place in our comparison. The external Sony is 10% slower than the category-leading Ricoh.
Digital Audio Extraction
|
DAE Transfer Rate - Average |
|---|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAE Transfer Rate - Start |
|---|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAE Transfer Rate - End |
|---|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing its trend of consistent, but insignificant leads over the CRX160E, the CRX1600L shows itself to be a 12X CLV audio extractor like its ATAPI twin. Both drives are at the slower end of the scale when compared to the competition.
Fortunately, our tests show excellent extraction quality for the Sony. CDSpeed99 gives it a perfect 10 and our informal ripping and listening of .wav files with CDDAE99 confirms this. However, the competition has equally excellent quality, leaving the Sony trailing overall. Those who demand quick DAE would be advised to look elsewhere.
CD-R Media Compatibility and Performance
|
| |
|---|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The CRX1600L had no issues with reading CD-R media in our tests. Read speeds were equal to its pressed CD performance and there were no compatibility issues with our Imation 80-minute test disc.
CD-RW Media Compatibility and Performance
|
| |
|---|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
| | | | | |
|
Windows 98 SE using FAT 32 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Sony's CD-RW read speeds a comparatively sedate 10X-20X CAV. No issues were encountered reading from Verbatim, Memorex, or Sony 4X media, nor with TDK high speed (4X-10X) media.
Now that formal examination of read capabilities is complete, let's see how the CRX1600L does in our burn tests.
Write/ReWrite Performance Results...
