My Comparisson Benq 1620 vs. NEC3500A

CD, DVD and (Ultra HD) Blu-ray Writers BenQ / Philips Writer
#1

Hi!

I had the chance to have 2 DVD-Burners for a short time as I planned to sell one of them to a friend.

I decided, the better one should stay at my PC.

So I ran some tests on all media I had at home.

To summarice, I will post here:

  • 10 different types of media (7+, 3- Im sorry, didnt have more - media at home)
  • All burned at Benq 1620 and NEC 3500A
  • All at Max Speed the burner allowed with CDSpeed
  • If one burner allowed higher speed than the other but has bad quality and the other one not, I lowered write speed to match the other burner and tested again
  • Benq burned: Qualitytest with Benq (6x read) and Liteon 832 (4x read)
  • NEC burned: Qualitytest with Liteon 832 (4x read)
  • Both burned: TRansfertest with Liteon 167T with read speed hacked Firmware

All tests are finished except the Transferrate tests, so I post now only 1 media, and all other ones following in the afternoon. Or can I edit a post later to add transferrate picture?

Have fun at reading.

Greetings,
Chefkoch81

#2

First disc:

Ricoh printable 4x bought at dvdrohlinge24.com 2 months ago.

Mediacode: RICOHJPNR01

Benq written at 8x
NEC written at 8x

1st Pic: Benq scanned @Benq
2st Pic: Benq scanned @LiteOn
3st Pic: Benq Transferratetest @LiteOn
4st Pic: NEC scanned @LiteOn
5st Pic: NEC Transferratetest @LiteOn

Summary for this media:

  • From the qualitytest, both media are good
  • Benq burns faster as he goes near at beginning to 8x
  • the Transferrategraph shows the reading curve of the NEC-burn is not that nice

So this point goes to the Benq.

More following in the evening.

Greetings






#3

The great thing about the BenQ is that while NEC is as slow as a turtle at 8x due to its Z-CLV, BenQ’s P-CAV makes it very fast. :slight_smile: Their speeds may be similar for 16x, but a lot of people out there are still burning at 8x.

#4

Chefkoch81,

It’s a pity that you don’t have more - (dash) media, because I think THAT is were you will find the real differentiator. I expect that the BenQ will show better results with + (plus) media, and the true test to decide on which drive will come down to the - performance (IMO). Either way, thanks for the tests! I’m anxiously waiting for your postings!

#5

Unless you don’t care about - media, like me :slight_smile:

#6

Hi here is next one.

Bulkpaq +R 4x printable bought at nierle.de a month ago.

Mediacode: PRODISC R02

Benq written at 4x
NEC written at 4x

1st Pic: Benq scanned @Benq
2st Pic: Benq scanned @LiteOn
3st Pic: Benq Transferratetest @LiteOn
4st Pic: NEC scanned @LiteOn
5st Pic: NEC Transferratetest @LiteOn

Summary for this media:

  • From the qualitytest, both media are good
  • NEC burns faster at 4x
  • the Transferrategraph shows the reading curve of the Benq-Burn is perfect, while the NEC-burn has a small problem at end

So this point goes to the Benq.

More following.

Greetings






#7

Next one.

Datasafe printable 4x bought at nierle.de 1 month ago.

Mediacode: RITEK R02

Benq written at 8x
NEC max speed is 4x

1st Pic: Benq scanned @Benq
2st Pic: Benq scanned @LiteOn

as this media has bad qualityscan results I choose to test again at 4x, since NECs max speed is 4x and compare the 4x results to each other. See next post.



#8

Seems a good idea of the Nec NOT to burn those RITEK’s at 8X and since you claimed you wanted to see performance, why the hell you still give the Benq a plus for Prodisc R02… That minor slowdown in the end has nothing to do with lack of quality, the Pi and PIF’s are both lower from the NEC. I will also post some scans, comparing the Nec with the Benq, since I own them both also.

#9

The above one (RITEK R02) both at 4x speed.

Benq written at 4x
NEC written at 4x

1st Pic: Benq scanned @Benq
2st Pic: Benq scanned @LiteOn
3st Pic: Benq Transferratetest @LiteOn
4st Pic: NEC scanned @LiteOn
5st Pic: NEC Transferratetest @LiteOn

Summary for this media:

  • From the qualitytest, Benq is good, NEC bad at end
  • NEC burns faster at 4x
  • the Transferrategraph shows the reading curve of both is quite perfect

So this point goes to the Benq.

More following at least tomorrow morning.

Greetings






#10

@s0lar:
at Prodisc, both at qualitytest are good. So the Transfergraph is the one which decides. But maybe Ur right. At Prodisc both are nearly equal.

The summaries are my opinion. With the pictures of quality and trensfer tests everybody can easily judge for his own.

Next one will be a dash media. Thats NEC terrain.

CU

#11

I will post some of my findings with RITEK G04 at 12X with liggy’s beta 8. Ok; it’s speedhacking, but then again, if you want performance, you need hacked fw for the nec and a real cdfreak doesn’t mind using it.

#12

Good to see some other comparisson pics but plz post only media which I also tested, since its “my” comparisson in this thread and I only tested “GSC02”, “MCC 01RG20” and “MCC 02RG20”.

Or maybe we can make this as a general comparrison thread for NEC vs Benq, but in this case plz use the same format I use here.

CU

#13

I will scan with my Benq and I will test the read back performance by using the Nec 3500, since it goes up to 16X. I will post pics of RICOH R02 and RITEK G04 soon.

#14

I’ve burned some RICOH JPN R02.
They burn at 16X on the Benq 1620 with the latest firmware. The disc reads back very good in my nec 3500, but the cdspeed disc quality check was not awesome, it was still OK, but the errors clearly increased at the part of the dvd that was written above 12X. I then wrote another disc at 12X and that read back even better and also were the errors constant and lower. There are 2 different types of RICOH R02, those with f.e. 31119-B1 and 31121-B2 numbers on the inner circle. When I tried 2 different spindles a few months ago with my Nec, I found out that the B2’s burned better then the B1’s. The discs used here, both burned by Nec and Benq were all with 31119-B1. The brand is Platinum 8X and costed me about 0.59 euro a disc, here in Belgium.

1st picture is a reading graph of the 16X burned disc by Benq with Nec.
2nd picture is a disc quality check of the 16X burned disc by Benq with Benq.
3rd picture is a reading graph of the 12X burned disc by Benq with Nec.
4rd picture is a disc quality check of the 12X burned disc by Benq with Benq.

#15

Interesting latest test.
I have 311119-B1 brand from Tevion in ALDI
and 311118-B2 , it’s Platinum 8X , 5 crystal boxes…

#16

I suggest you try them both at 16X I’m pretty sure the B2’s will have less errors.

#17

Now I burned the same discs, well the next one on the spindle with the Nec 3500 with Liggy’s beta 8 at 12X. The read graph is very good, no problems at all, same as the Benq. But in the disc quality check you can clearly see that the parts written at 12X are a lot worse then the 6X and 8X parts. They can still be read but Burning these B1 RICOH’s at 8X with the Nec is the best choice. I’ve burned some B2’s before and they burned OK at 12X, but then again, those B2 will probably burn awesome at 16X on the Benq. The Nec is a little slower at 12X burning then the Benq and the quality is a bit worse, so the winner is the Benq. Both are good, Benq is just better with RICOH JPN R02.
1st pic is read graph of the 12X burned disc by the Nec with Nec.
2nd pic is the disc quality check of the 12X burned disc by the Nec with the Benq.

#18

similar to my findings comparing a TY burn with NEC and BenQ…BenQ tends to burn better with lower PI counts…and max…

#19

Hi again.

Here the next ones.

Fortis -R 4x bought at dvdrohlinge24.com 4 months ago.

Mediacode: GSC02

Benq written at 4x
NEC written at 4x

1st Pic: Benq scanned @Benq (speed at max, since a rescan at 6x was not possible, cause the Benq does not recognize the media anymore)
2st Pic: Benq scanned @LiteOn
3st Pic: Benq Transferratetest @LiteOn
4st Pic: NEC scanned @LiteOn
5st Pic: NEC Transferratetest @LiteOn

Summary for this media:

  • From the qualitytest, the NEC is good esspecially for this cheap media and much better than the Benq
  • NEC burns faster at 4x
  • the Transferrategraph shows the reading curve of both is not the best, but the NEC-disc better here.
  • The Benq does not recognize the media written by himself anymore

So this point goes clearly to the NEC.






#20

Here the next ones.

Verbatim -R 4x printable in Jewelcase bought at Mediamarkt (elecronic supermarket) 3 months ago.

Mediacode: MCC 01RG20

Benq written at 4x
NEC written at 8x

1st Pic: Benq scanned @Benq
2st Pic: Benq scanned @LiteOn
3st Pic: Benq Transferratetest @LiteOn
4st Pic: NEC scanned @LiteOn
5st Pic: NEC Transferratetest @LiteOn

Summary for this media:

  • From the qualitytest, the Benq is a bit better, but have in mind the faster writing speed from the NEC. Also the NEC one is good
  • NEC burns faster (8x, but its not alot faster since the 8x periode is not that long)
  • the Transferrategraph shows the reading curve of both has a small glitch.

No winner at this media I would say, but maybe a slight advantage for the NEC burned media cause of the burning speed.

CU