With the rapidly increasing numbers of Blu-ray players hitting the market,
it is becoming more and more difficult to determine which players are worth
your hard earned cash. In an effort to help our readers and Blu-ray
consumers in general, Blu-ray.com has created a special Blu-ray player
benchmark test. We've tested the most popular players on the market
today using custom Java tools, the Caffeinemark benchmark for Java
performance on embedded platforms as well as player load-time speed
testing tools. Our hope is that these numbers will prove to be valuable for
those seeking the fastest and best-performing Blu-ray players currently on
The following players have been tested using the Blu-ray.com Performance
Benchmark (please note that all testing has been done with the respective
player's latest firmware updates):
From the Player page, click on specifications and scroll about halfway down
the page to the “Performance” area. Contained within this section are the
specific benchmark numbers. Now that you've found them, what do they
Power on time: Measures the time the player takes, in seconds, to
power on from the remote control and to convey that it is ready to work
via the HDTV display.
The lower the number the better.
Disc Eject Time : This test measures the amount of time it takes, in
seconds, for a
player to fully eject the disc tray while playing a Blu-ray movie. The lower
the number the better. Since disc eject times vary from film to film, it is the relative performance measurement between players that should be considered.
Movie Load Time – Basic: Measures the amount of time, in
seconds, that a player takes to
load a film, encoded without Java or BD+, from the time the disc tray starts closing to the time that content appears on the screen. BD drive
speed can impact this number. The lower the number the better. Since load times vary from film to film, and also the order they are played, it is the relative performance measurement between players that should be considered.
Movie Load Time - BD-J: Measures the amount of time a player
takes, in seconds, to
load a film, encoded with BD-Java, from the time the disc tray starts closing
to the time that content appears on the screen. BD drive speed
can impact this number. The lower the number the better. Since load times vary from film to film, and also the order they are played, it is the relative performance measurement between players that should be considered.
Movie Load Time – BD+: Measures the amount of time a player
takes, in seconds, to
load a film, encoded with BD+ copy protection, from the time the disc tray
starts closing to the time that content appears on the screen. BD drive
speed can impact this number. The lower the number the
better. Since load times vary from film to film, and also the order they are played, it is the relative performance measurement between players that should be considered.
BD-J Overall Performance: This measurement measures the number of Java instructions executed per second, reflecting the player's overall ability to efficiently execute BD-Java content. This will affect the player's smoothness of menus, games, and other features using BD-J. Some players will not execute this benchmark and are marked with a red “NO” in the performance section. A "NO" rating does not indicate poor performance, but simply that the player in question does not support the form of media that the test disc is recorded on. The higher the number the better.
The following tests measure player's BD-Java graphics abilities. These
numbers show how efficient the player will be at loading and navigating
menus as well as Java based games.
BD-J Small Object Performance: Measures smoothness and speed
Java graphic objects – the higher the number the better.
BD-J Large Object Performance: Measures smoothness and speed of larger Java graphic objects - the higher the number the better.
BD-J Scaling Performance This test measures the player's ability to scale Java graphics for BD menus and games. The higher the number the better.
BD-J Opacity Performance This measurement calculates the
ability to render graphics that are opaque. The higher the number the
While none of these numbers indicate how a player will perform from a
picture quality or audio quality standpoint, they do indicate the players
that have the ability to handle complex Blu-ray content in the most
efficient and seamless manner. Numbers also tend to improve as firmware updates are rolled out for each player. So, don't be too disappointed if your favorite player doesn't score very well. Our hope is that these numbers help to answer several of the many difficult questions asked while in the decision-making process for finding the right Blu-ray player for each reader's own personal needs.
As more Blu-ray players are made available to us and new firmware is
released, we will continually update the players section with the most up-to-date performance data.
ALAN: As the article states "BD-J Overall Performance: This measurement calculates the player's overall ability to efficiently execute BD-Java content. This will affect the player's smoothness of menus, games, and other features using BD-J. Some players will not execute this benchmark and are marked with a red “NO” in the performance section. The higher the number the better."
This site rocks! Now I'll know when a stand alone player performs well enough to warrant me retiring my PS3 to "just games". I love my PS3, but I look forward to the day it's soundly beaten for blu-ray playing too.
ALAN: I'm sure it performs well and you can use the other Java performance numbers to
conclude that it is a solid Java performer. It should, essentially, perform the same as the 350,s o if you are happy with it, then buy away!
Keep in mind, that a "No" doesn't mean that the player performed badly, it just wouldn't run the type of media that the test disc is on.
Wow, I can't believe how well the LG-BD300 holds up.
I just put all the data in a spreadsheet and it's the #2 behind the PS3 in just about every category...and it says it loads a basic Blu-ray Disc quicker than the PS3.
Kudos to LG.
dobyblue, you should post your spreadsheet in the forum. I was going to enter the numbers in a spreadsheet as well so that would save me/others the time. Anyway, yeah, surprising to see how well the LG performs since I hadn't really heard much about it. Edit: Thanks Y3k Bug.
Well, DEFINITELY the Playstation 3 is the best blu-ray player on the market! you can play all your back in the day Playstation and Playstation 2 games on it, you can rip CDs to the hard disk, you can play standard DVDs on it(if you're into the standard DVD that is!), and best of all, It is the best Blu-ra player on the market because of the fact that it has the most entertainment of any blu-ray player out there! Blu-ray disc for life!
So the Olevia and Inginia players has an overall BD-J performance higher than the new Panny BD35/55 ? In fact, the new Panny has the lower overall BD-J performance of all of the players listed. Is that even correct? Interesting.
Movie Load Time – Basic: Measures the amount of time, in seconds, that a player takes to load
a film, encoded without Java or BD+, from the time the disc tray starts closing to the time that
content appears on the screen. BD drive speed can impact this number. The lower the number
Noticed a flaw on the Spec for the PS3 40 gig, it says it can not play SACD which is not true and the
overall score was a 4.8 while the 80 gig has a 5.0. The machine is identical except for the hard space.
I notice that the PS3 does not bitstream DTS HD MA or Dolby True HD. What does that mean exactly and is there honestly a huge difference in sound quality between the PS3 and the players that do? Also, what about the fact that PS3 does 7.1 through HDMI only and not through analogue? What's the big deal about that?
Steelmaker, decoding in the player versus in the receiver should be the same but it's a point that a lot of people like to debate. Just search for the info (there's a lot of info on the subject). More analog outputs provides greater flexibility especially with older receivers so that's why some find that desirable. If you have a newer receiver with HDMI, then it's probably a moot point.
I have to agree with some of the other posters. The PS3 60 is no longer on the market, but it's a very popular player still. Many people look to purchase these on eBay or Craigslist instead of buying a new 40Gb or 80Gb.
Better or worse, it's definately a model that people are interested in since it's specs are considerably different than the 40 and 80 models. I think many people looking to buy their first player consider getting one of these.
Anyone dismissing the Playstation 3 on the grounds of DVD upscaling performance is taking a very silly stand.
DVD upconversion? Who freaking cares!?
Any DVD upconversion to 1080p method is flawed. I don't care what machine is doing it. Anyone looking to buy a Blu-ray player or Playstation 3 is interested in playing Blu-ray movies on the device, not just merely playing their old DVDs. In the area of Blu-ray performance, PS3 is still second to none.
Thanks for the info. The more information we have at our disposal the better we will be able to decide where to spend our hard-earned $$. To me this info is a starting point. Load times and Java issues are secondary to PQ, AQ, reliability, how often firmware is updated, noise and heat output... It would be great if these initial Blu-ray benchmarks can to expand to eventually include other factors.
I think this is a pretty good thing but honestly, I really don't care too much about BD-J or BD-Live. All I want in a Blu-ray player is prestine picture and audio performance. I currently have a Sony BDP-S350 and it does an adequate job for the price I paid - $300 in August. I know a lot of you think I'm crazy but when I watch a movie, I really don't care to chat about it or see how they shot a scene while watching the movie. So, here is a suggestion I would like to make: Manufacturers should release two version of a player, one with kick ass picture and sound and the other with kick ass picture and sound plus the BD-j and BD- Live. The one with the extra crap would cost a little more. Also, Blu-ray movies should be released the same way. Don't get me wrong, this is a good tool for people who are about to buy their first player. Keep up the good work guys. By the way, Blu-ray movie prices are still too frigging high!
The BD-J isn't really something to care or not care about in that sense. It's used for the menus and other features and has to be supported. Faster BD-J performance is good b/c it means the menus won't be sluggish or limited (for example).
As for different players supporting different features, there are 3 profiles for the players with one just providing basic functionality, one adding PiP to that and the last one supporting everything. The problem (as some see it anyway), is that it's confusing for consumers. When they purchase a movie, they expect everything on it to be available and work on their player and that wouldn't be the case. So, it seems everyone is trying to move to the BD-Live players just to avoid that (although currently you can still get bonus-view players).
The numbers seem a little arbitrary. "The higher number the better" and "the lower number the better" means NOTHING unless it is in context. THere should be a scale for the numbers to be relevant. Make 100 the top score for the non-measurable numbers so we have a baseline for comparison.
Why no review on the Sony ES BRP line, The Yamaha 2900, or the Marantz 2,000 player.. Some viewers would like to know how they stack up with the budget minded options..The Sony 1,000 player looks really nice..I love the great construction and many details other players left out.
your comment: 1080p 24fs on the ps3 is top tier had nothing to do with my post. i clearly said the upscaling failed the DVD benchmark and this comment had nothing to do with the bluray abilities of the player, and for the record the current crop of players from panasonic AND sony outperform the ps3 in terms of video quality and upscaling, this is based on benchmark tests conducted by professionals.
you used to tear apart my posts on hddigest using the same rhetoric, lets not do it here
It would be interesting to see the difference between this and a standard set of DVD players benchmarked in the same manor. Without context these numbers are great, but not useful to the average person looking to understand why they should upgrade to blu.
My Playstation 3 loads my Blu-ray disc movies in 5-8 seconds! Believe it whether you want to or not! I have the 80GB with 4 USB ports and it loads my Blu-ray discs un under 10 seconds! Blu-ray disc for life!
To ChrisLyon - The BD-J benchmarks done here can't really be compared to regular DVD's as they do not have that capability. This is more for people who are already wanting to get a BD player and want to compare them.
Regarding the PS3's, here's a quick rundown of the previous models:
Generation 1 : 20GB / 60GB - PS2 Hardware Backwards Compatibility (BC)
Generation 2 : 40GB / 80GB - Only the 80GB model had 'Software Emulation' BC
Generation 3 : 80GB / 160GB - No BC at all, and apparently never again
I picked up a 20GB model on eBay about a month ago, it has the BC in it and I didn't really need the WiFi or Card Reader.