PlayStation 3 SSD Upgrade Makes it Load Faster

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

darkavenger123

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2010
353
0
18,780
This post. Is about SSD in a PS3. Why suddenly PC fanboys, PS3 fanboys, XBOX fanboys attack each other??

I game on PC and XBOX. Both has pro and cons. So does PS3. PC fanboys yelling how great PC graphics is are amusing. Most PC games are still DX9 today...which is the same level as PS3 and XBOX(which actually closer to DX10). DX10 was a failure. And DX11 is just starting. I don't see how good PC graphics is, except the higher resolution. And i have a GTX 460 1GB.
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
1,859
1
19,780
Why upgrade a console seriously? Its poor performance compared to a real gaming machine anyway, its like purchasing all thoose rally gadgets to your old car. Its a tad faster but still gets smooked at every turn by a good one!

For the moeny spent on console + SSD the clever purchaser would have looked at a entry level game rig instead and got 2x the performance atleast!
 

dalta centauri

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2010
885
0
19,010

It's the fact that the console can get a notable decrease in load times when upgrading, which is slightly impressive for a console. Hopefully we don't see SONY releasing ps3's at an increase of 150$ by advertising that it's faster in many ways to the older models.
 

ntrceptr

Distinguished
Jan 26, 2006
97
0
18,630
[citation][nom]Gin Fushicho[/nom]It's only faster because instead of loading 20-40+GB's of data your only loading at most 9GB's. =p Do your research, or have some common sense. Not faster by much either.Are we gonna start arguing over consoles now? Because PC=Master Race.[/citation]

I dont have either console I stick to PC but I doubt any PS3 game is 20-40 GB unless it's cut scene footage. If you need that much room for code your a crappy developer. Textures must fit in video memory on a console so you shouldn't be loading more than that.

Your PC games can get up to 15-20 GB in size but thats because they have to develop multiple textures for different quality settings, which is all cut out on consoles (only one set of textures and such).

As far as an SSD in any console...it should be good as i dont see them writing to disk alot unless the developer again was poor quality.
 

bildo123

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2007
1,599
0
19,810
[citation][nom]nevertell[/nom]FYI, faster drives are faster ![/citation]

But now you know by *HOW MUCH*. This is the most fail statement ever that consistently rears its obnoxious head up. Of course you know a BMW M5 is faster than any year Ford Mustang. The reason people even bother to buy the M5 is based on *how much* faster/better it is.

With regards to the article, those are fairly impressive improvements. Especially with some numbers showing *how much* of a difference SSDs make.
 

ricdiculus

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2009
292
0
18,810
[citation][nom]Soldier37[/nom]LOL putting a SSD drive in a PS3 really? Thats like putting a V8 engine in a Ford Fiesta....not! My PC specs makes the consoles look like the Atari days and I have a PS3. 6 Core at 4ghz, 8gb ddr3, Asus 5970, 2560 x 1600p Super IPS Panel,2 x 128GB SSD in Raid 0 FTW.[/citation]

Wow, what's it like to be you?
 

ricdiculus

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2009
292
0
18,810
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]Why upgrade a console seriously? Its poor performance compared to a real gaming machine anyway, its like purchasing all thoose rally gadgets to your old car. Its a tad faster but still gets smooked at every turn by a good one!For the moeny spent on console + SSD the clever purchaser would have looked at a entry level game rig instead and got 2x the performance atleast![/citation]

Maybe. But no GT5 for the 'Super Race' of pc's

 

rhelme

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2008
64
0
18,630
Well, if the Xbox came out with a game that needed 50 Gig of Disc space, that is what, 10 DVD's??? Please swap disc 7 for 8 to continue.....
 
I'm a PC gamer and PS3 gamer. I have yet to put SSD in the gaming rig, let alone the PS3. Maybe next year I'll upgrade on the PC if prices drop. But I definitely can't see spending 75-85% of the cost of the entire freaking console on a 120GB SSD to roughly halve the load times (let alone an even more expensive larger one I'd need to replace the 320GB 7200RPM one in there now loaded with home video and pictures).

I'll wait between load times and do what I've always done in between said loading: take a couple swigs of beer.
 
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]Why upgrade a console seriously? Its poor performance compared to a real gaming machine anyway...For the moeny spent on console + SSD the clever purchaser would have looked at a entry level game rig instead and got 2x the performance atleast![/citation]

Maybe people like me can't take their PCs with them everywhere we go - and we don't want to spend $1,500 on a decent laptop for a portable PC gaming replacement. Also, bringing a console over to a friend's house is an easy way to share gaming at a party. Ever thought about that?
 

shadowmaster625

Distinguished
Mar 27, 2007
352
0
18,780


I think what people are wanting to know is does it seem to load faster the more times you do it? Say if you keep loading the same few tracks over and over, does it load them measurably faster than it did the first time you loaded them? In theory the Momentus XT should work great for reloading the same few things over and over, since the NAND is only a read cache not a write cache.
 

scuba dave

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2009
342
0
18,780
[citation][nom]bangtime[/nom]you ps3 fanboys are ignorant elitist nerds. I own the 1st generation 360. i picked mine up the first month it came out. i never had a red ring, i never had hardware issues and have you seen the xbox slims? the disc drive is not loud. btw ps3 has issues playing some video files. with xbox, download the codecs and you are good to watch movies you've ripped from your dvd or blu-ray. 2 of my friends has had their ps3's crapped out and guess what Sony said, buy a new one or give us $150.00 and ps3 controllers is the most uncomfortable piece of crap since nintendo. who made that thing, Mattel?i'm not a fanboy, i play both systems. people talking about how bad the 360 is are ignorant. stop drinking sony's juice. both systems are good in their own way but for gaming, not one is clearly better than the other.[/citation]

Well, if the fact that I ONLY use my ps3 for downloaded movies and watching netflix makes me a ps3 elitist nerd(LOL >.>) then so be it. The point of my post wasn't to say "omfg ur tol noob 360 is liek suxxor." It was to say if your gonna start playing tit for tat all over again.. So be it. You don't make a blind comment about one sucking more than the other and NOT expect a jab in return. I jabbed. Deal it. I mean hell..the ps3 vs 360 fight has gone on since even before they were even released! It's no better than a Nvidia vs ATI fight. Rocks being thrown everywhere, but at the end of the day who cares. They all work, they all are great in their own rights, and the competition between the two is even more critical than what each product can do independantly. I just happened to only point out one side, and not the other. Maybe I should have taken a different route. Obviously you don't get into a fight with an idiot, because idiots will lower you to their level.. and then beat you with experience. (And so far you got me good. ;P) ((Like what I did there? ;D)

Now however.. I will agree with you on the controllers.. Jesus those things are ridiculous.. Perhaps thats why I only play games on my 360. Which just so happens to be my 3rd 360, because of RRoD. My ps3 on the other hand, is one of the original 60gb ps3's.. And I haven't ever had a single problem with it. Ever. Nor do I physically know of a single person that has ever had an issue with one. I couldn't honestly begin to give an accurate number for the 360.. beyond saying I have physically seen more RRoD's than I have fingers and toes. Which, I think, says alot.

The ps3 was a very well designed, well oiled machine, that has a remarkably clean image, with the exception of being more difficult to program for(which has no effect on the average consumer), the limited codecs supported, other OS functionality being removed, and the, frankly, not ergonomic controller. But most of those are only minor issues.. to a consumer. The ps3 has pretty much perfectly worked exactly how Sony has wanted it to work from day one. However, the xbox 360 was, unfortunately, NOT very well designed either, with many, many people having had disc's destroyed and consoles bricked(basically), so on so forth. But on the positive side of all that is the interface for the xbox is soooo much better than the ps3. I personally say the trade-off there isn't worth it. But that's just my opinion. You might say your not a fanboy.. But beyond that sentence, and another saying you play on both systems, you spoke nothing but bad about the ps3. Nothing good. So I'm inclined to believe you are a fanboy, despite your "claim". Sorry buddy. :,(

But on a purely hardware level, the ps3 is better. I even remember reading something on Toms once about a developer basically saying they have maxed out what they can get out of the 360, however he felt there was still alot of untapped potential in the ps3. But even so, it's still a "use what YOU like" playing field. I do like the 360 more in terms of playing games. Hence why I've endured the RRoD twice and still keep using it. But that's just me.

So their.. I put down my sippy cup of "Sony Juice" I've got. Can you now please put down the 40 you've been chuggin? Pretty please? ;P
 

CptTripps

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2006
361
0
18,780
[citation][nom]soky602[/nom]For those who say PC is better. Hey I agree, but there isn't really any pre-built $300 PC that can do what the PS3 can do out of a box.[/citation]

Am thinking if you went AMD it would be pretty easy to match the PS3 in performance but would probably go over that price by a bit. But really, they take a loss on hardware and charge more for games. I think the price difference would be made up by cheaper games in no time.
 

CptTripps

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2006
361
0
18,780
[citation][nom]rhelme[/nom]Well, if the Xbox came out with a game that needed 50 Gig of Disc space, that is what, 10 DVD's??? Please swap disc 7 for 8 to continue.....[/citation]

What if PS3 came out with a game that actually used 50GB of space (that was not fmv)? That game would cost $300 because the amount of game needed to fill that space with medium quality textures would take hundreds of programmers and years of developement.

DVD is a limitation of space compared to BR. A limitation that has rarely actually caused a problem.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Try it in a hacked PS3, bet the results will be ridiculously faster as it would load completely from the drive.....
 

eldenisson

Honorable
Apr 23, 2012
1
0
10,510
hi guys, i wanted to play rage on my ps3, so i need an ssd...

i found a good offer of a corsair force 3 60gb sata III

will it work on my ps3? is there anyone that has already mounted on his ps3?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.