The higher wobble frequency doesn’t negate the need for buffer underrun recovery (suspend & resume writing at any time), indeed I can’t see how it could realistically affect buffer underruns at all.
The wobble frequency (of the pre-groove spiral moulded into the disc platter) on CD-R/RW is modulated to: A) Synchronise the rotational speed of the drive when reading/writing and B) Encode information about the blank disc, via a timecode reference (the ATIP information), primarily so the drive can use the correct settings when writing the disc.
On DVD-R/RW the wobble is the same frequency as CD-R/RW, but it is unmodulated. The additional data about the disc (MID code etc.) is instead encoded in additional pits (land pre-pit) alongside the groove.
[As far as I can see in this case the wobble frequency can still be used to synchronise the rotational speed of the drive, but I cannot see how it can aid addressing the desired location on the disc when seeking at random - so designed with sequential reading in mind (e.g. video playback) and not as well suited for data discs. But by the time the DVD-R specification was finalised DVD-RAM had already been on the market for 4-5 years and was much better suited for that, having been specifically designed as a random access computer data storage medium.]
DVD+R/RW was beaten to market by Pioneer and DVD-R, but it was much better designed and technically far superior to DVD-R/RW. Not because the wobble frequency is higher, but because of how it is used. As with DVD-R/RW the wobble frequency is constant, but by using bi-phase modulation (periodically inverting the phase of the signal) the exact location along the spiral track is encoded into the pre-groove wobble signal. This is called Address in Pre-groove and allows the drive to navigate precisely to any location on the disc, which is not possible with CD-R/RW or DVD-R/RW.
At the time DVD-R/RW and DVD+R/RW were launched, packet writing to CD-RW was very popular and for this Address in Pregroove gave DVD+RW a definite advantage. Furthermore the DVD+RW specification included bad sector management similar to a HDD (identify, mark as bad and rewrite data to a good sector), which DVD-RW lacked. (Indeed the first DVD+ drives were +RW only - second generation +R/RW capable drives only arrived some months later.) But by the time DVD writing became a mainstream activity the performance of the drives themselves had greatly improved and, with the arrival of USB flash drives, packet writing had fallen out of favour. So the advantages of Address in Pregroove were less apparent. And dual-format DVD writers the norm the format war had been settled, so the technical differences between + & - were irrelevant for most users and could safely be ignored.
It is interesting to consider what the outcome of the format war actually was. One could argue that as far as the hardware goes DVD+R/RW won. Because it is the more technically advanced it would reasonably require more advanced hardware. And as the differences between +R/RW & -R/RW are accommodated by the differences between between +R/RW & CD-R/RW (which +R/RW writers were designed to handle anyway), one can argue that a +R/RW drive can be made compatible with -R/RW by essentially ‘underclocking’ & tweaking some parameters in firmware. However the opposite would not be true - the microcontroller of a -R/RW drive designed only to accommodate a 140.6 kHz signal used for basic speed synchronisation purposes would not be capable of decoding & processing the 817.4 kHz signal with encoded address data of +R/RW, so a significant hardware redesign would be required.
So a win for the DVD+RW Alliance and DVD+R/RW? Not really. By 2007 triple-format ‘SuperMulti’ DVD writers became virtually universal (the few exceptions being disabled in firmware for cost/licensing reasons), and DVD-RAM was an official format of the DVD Forum alongside DVD-R/RW.
As far as blank media goes I would call it a win for DVD+R/RW. Dual-layer DVD-R discs were not a success. And I get the impression that +R blank discs outsold -R in Europe and throughout most of the world (although I cannot find any statistics to back this up). But DVD-R/RW would certainly have survived as it has always been the dominant format in Japan (indeed DVD+R/RW discs have always been virtually unobtainable there), thanks to widespread early adoption of video DVD recorders in the '90s and imposition of the CPRM copy management system, which requires the use of DVD-R/RW.