Differences in burn times?

[jackfalbey]

I just did a side-by-side between my laptop & desktop (specs below). I burned identical .iso files (1hr. 9min.) using ImgBurn with identical settings (8x, no verify), and got 7:35 on the 8400 and 10:24 on the m6300?!?! Any ideas why the newer, faster, more advanced computer takes 50% longer than the older one?

[Chuck Engels]

That doesn't seem right, the only thing I can think of that wouldn't compare are the hard drives.
It has to write the file to the hard drive before writing to disc, that would take longer if the drive is only 5400rpm.
Also, the 8400 has twice as much RAM, don't think it would make that much difference but could be part of it.

[jackfalbey]

Both HDDs are 7200 RPM, but I am burning from a RAID0 on the desktop... maybe that's it? Or maybe because the laptop is burning from the C: drive? The discrepancy holds up even on multi-copy runs; the desktop burns 3 DVDs in the time it takes for the laptop to burn 2.

[Chuck Engels]

Are you sure they are both burning at 8x?

I have a similar problem with my Precision when I burn from Encore DVD, it will only let me burn at 4x.
My 8300 will let me burn at 8x, so the burn times are twice as fast and I can burn 2 to 1.
I think that has something to do with the burner on the Precision.

[jackfalbey]

Both burners are capable of 16x speed, but I set the software to burn at 8x. I first noticed a difference when I was burning this project using Encore CS3 on the laptop and ImgBurn on the desktop (to comply with the "dual-install but single-use" clause in Adobe's EULA). I thought it might be Encore that was slow, so I decided to do a side-by-side with ImgBurn on both computers to remove the software as a variable. I also tested using Encore on the desktop and it was still faster than the laptop. So, it seems that it is a hardware-related condition...

[Chuck Engels]

Is there something else running on the laptop that is taking up some of the resources?
Are both running XP? I forgot to read this time, must be learning from Steve I see that you have XP home on one and Pro on the other.

[jackfalbey]

Both systems are kept "lean & mean" but the desktop actually has more apps on it, since it does double duty as the family's home computer. The laptop is purely a mobile editing studio.

[Chuck Engels]

There has to be some obvious difference that we are missing Jack, anyone have any ideas ??

[jackfalbey]

Okay, to rule out burning from the laptop's C: drive as a factor, I burned another DVD on the laptop with the same .iso file sourced from the eSATA external drive and got 10:30, 6 seconds slower than burning from the C: drive. I clocked all the drives with HD Tune; the average data transfer rates followed by ImgBurn burn times with identical 3.85GB .iso files are as follows:

Laptop HDDs
C: drive (Hitachi 200GB 7200RPM SATAII 8MB) --- 51.1 MB/sec --- 10:24
eSATA external (WD 500GB 7200RPM 16MB) ------ 65.0 MB/sec --- 10:30

Desktop HDDs
C: drive (WD 250GB 7200RPM SATA 16MB) -------- 49.1 MB/sec --- n/a
RAID0 (Seagate 2x160GB 7200RPM SATA 8MB) --- 85.0 MB/sec --- 7:35
USB external (WD 500GB 7200RPM 16MB) --------- 21.3 MB/sec --- 7:34

So it appears that the source drive and data transfer rate isn't a factor... the identical burn time between the RAID0 and the USB external prove that.

After a little research, I found that the burners are rated at different max write speeds:

Laptop DVD burner
Hitachi-LG GSA-T21N, DVD max write 8x

Desktop DVD burner
Lite-On LH-20A1H, DVD max write 20x

But I set the the ImgBurn software to burn at 8x on both systems... is it possible that the burner with the higher max speed actually burns faster even when the speeds are set at the same level?

[Chuck Engels]

I am starting to think that RAM and cache has something to do with it, I also wonder if imgburn is really burning at 8x on the desktop.
Did you say that you found the same difference when burning with Encore?

[jackfalbey]

Yes, Encore also burns faster on the desktop...

As you said, RAM may be the factor here; it's the ONLY area where the desktop's hardware is better than the laptop...