Anyone know if a solid state drive would work in a PS3?

IAmTheCheapestGamer

IAmTheCheapestGamer

Banned
I signed up for email alerts from a site called Mwave due to their semi frequent HDMI cable sales and they sent me an alert today for a 40gb 2.5" SATA drive for $69.99 after a mail-in rebate.

So what do you guys think? Would this sort of a drive work at all in a PS3?

This is the drive HERE .

Mind you, that's 80gb's smaller than my stock factory 120gb drive, but I don't play more than 1-2 games at a time so I'd have no problems with deleting and adding stuff.

I'm just trying to cut down on the amount of heat my slim PS3 throws off and reduce the number of moving parts if at all possible.
 
Ahhh. Thanks for the info. I was wondering if any 2.5" SATA laptop drive would work whether it was SSD or not.

The PS3 seriously needs to be able to use these and/or Sony needs to optimize the XMB to not take 5-7 and up to 10 seconds to load in when in a game.
 
Any 2.5" will work as far as I have seen

Have upgraded the 3 I have all to 500 gig drives :)

Can use a 7200 rpm drive but the extra heat they put out might not be worth the speed trade off
 
Don't SSD get hotter than regular drives? I seem to recall someone talking about this a while ago, and aside from cost prohibiting it from being practical (at the time), I thought they said they put off enough heat to screw up the system.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']The PS3 seriously needs to be able to use these and/or Sony needs to optimize the XMB to not take 5-7 and up to 10 seconds to load in when in a game.[/QUOTE]

That's more of a memory issue than a storage issue. Unlike the dashboard on the 360, the PS3 doesn't have dedicated memory for the XMB.

What sony needs to do is cut down on the amount of options that load when the XMB is opened during gameplay. We don't need to be able to choose every single item on the XMB.
 
40 gig ssd hd for $70 after MIB? How much heat could it put out that you need to invest $70 for a 40 gig? 70 can get you a 5200 rpm 500 gig easily. If the heat is the main issue, just get a small fan and point at it or get one of the intercoolers (I have no idea if it works).

I definitely agree that the XMB is just filled with nonsense. Why the hell do we need the PSN store icon in almost every tab? I want to play the game, exit it, or check messages! Who the hell plays COD and presses the PS button to see What's New? I miss the old XMB without the clutter.
 
I was just mainly looking into the SSD's for the fact that unlike the standard HDD's there's less(no?) moving parts in them and thus less likely to fail too quickly.

Aside from that I'm ok with my 120gb stock HDD. But if you wanna talk heat put out by a PS3, my old 40gb I used to have would raise the temperature in my small room at least five degrees while playing. It doesn't sound like much, but try putting up with that in the spring/summer or middle of winter. Although in the winter I didn't mind it so much as it was like having an extra heater in my room.;)
 
IMHO, regardless of whether or not the solid state drive was 10 times faster than a platter HDD, with a rocket up its ass, it is still only 60 Gb HDD. Now, when you figure that a 60Gb HDD, on top of being small already, will be further reduced in size to around ~56 to 58Gb of usable space (because the way drive manufacturers define a Gigabyte as 1000 Megabytes instead of 1024 Mb...so right there you are losing 24Mb of space per Gb...). Next, you will need to install your console's system files on the HDD, yet again further diminishing capacity...

In addition, without the benefit of the performance increase, it would seem that you are much better off getting a platter HDD. It will be a lot cheaper and you will get a lot more usable space for all those games...

P.S.: I have only ever had 2 mechanical HDDs fail in my lifetime (out of the many HDDs I have owned and used), and both were well over 3 years old and used in RAID arrays in servers (the drives were constantly used 24/7/365). I think you will be safe using one in your PS3.


EDIT: Eeeww, its only 40Gb for $70!! I misread and thought it said 60Gb. I would definitely pass on that as you will probably only have a little over 30Gb usable space after installing system files. I guarantee you will only be disappointed with the end result. I know I would.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the best way to increase the life of a console/HD is just being proactive. People are always posting things like my ps3 died, how do i fix it? That's being reactive and no good since your ps3s dead now. So just do cleanings, blow air into it and keep it well ventilated and in a nice temp room, it should last a very long time. Unless you get those anomalies like that 40 gig ps3 you had. My friend's got the 80 gig BC metal gear one and it makes alot of noise and the heat is too much. He takes such good care of it but I feel like it will eventually crap out because that fan is not cooling it enough.

I have the 80 gig non bc with a 500 gig hd in it. It's 2 years old and I think it's got at least 4 years (talking out my ass now). I also have the fat launch ps2 and still working strong. Won't work when it's vertical but it works horizantally.
 
It's not worth the trouble to install SSD in the PS3... SSDs are great for faster data storage/retrieval, but excessive writing to the drives is bad. The last time I read on those SSD drive is that they probably have life span of 3-5 years for excessive read/reading... I could be wrong on the improved gen of SSDs.
 
[quote name='mr_burnzz']I think the best way to increase the life of a console/HD is just being proactive. People are always posting things like my ps3 died, how do i fix it? That's being reactive and no good since your ps3s dead now. So just do cleanings, blow air into it and keep it well ventilated and in a nice temp room, it should last a very long time. Unless you get those anomalies like that 40 gig ps3 you had. My friend's got the 80 gig BC metal gear one and it makes alot of noise and the heat is too much. He takes such good care of it but I feel like it will eventually crap out because that fan is not cooling it enough.

I have the 80 gig non bc with a 500 gig hd in it. It's 2 years old and I think it's got at least 4 years (talking out my ass now). I also have the fat launch ps2 and still working strong. Won't work when it's vertical but it works horizantally.[/QUOTE]
My 40gb? Or someone else's? I know now that all I had to do with my 40 gb to get it loading discs like it was when I first got it again was the file restore thing I do on my slim every so often(usually after it freezes on a game).

As for the lifespan of these systems, to me if I'm paying $300 or over for something, that shit better last me AT LEAST 10 years. The piddily one year warranty Sony offers is a joke. That's why I always wish that I lived in a state where these warranties were not allowed to be as limited as they are.:roll:
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Ahhh. Thanks for the info. I was wondering if any 2.5" SATA laptop drive would work whether it was SSD or not.

The PS3 seriously needs to be able to use these and/or Sony needs to optimize the XMB to not take 5-7 and up to 10 seconds to load in when in a game.[/QUOTE]

Up to 10 seconds? Seriously? Who cares?
 
[quote name='moothemagiccow']Up to 10 seconds? Seriously? Who cares?[/QUOTE]
I do.:booty: Yet all people moan and whine and piss about is 'give us cross game chat so we can talk to all our self important friends while we're in different games'.

I'd rather they focus on shit that'll make the console more stable instead of the social bullshit.
 
Cheapest, it's a good idea but I wouldn't buy a drive that has less storage than what you have now.
 
This thought just occurred to me...I randomly bought a Seagate Momentus XT like I use in my notebook. GREAT drive-at worst it's as fast as a normal 500GB 7200RPM notebook drive, but then it has double the RAM, plus a 4GB flash cache, so it's usually faster than a 10,000RPM Velociraptor, and is closer in performance to a quality SSD typically than to a 5400RPM notebook drive.

Anyway it makes total sense for a notebook with a single drive bay, as large enough SSDs are $1000-2000, versus just over $100 for the Momentus XT.

BUT...I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but I don't actually need much storage space on a Playstation. Basically just for save files and game installs. a 40 or 80GB drive should suit me fine...I'm think maybe I should have gone with an Intel drive like that?

Dang... But is it even worth it? I mean like I'm thinking with the XT, what's cool is most of a game install will fit on the SLC Flash when I'm playing it, so it'll probably be close to (or heck, maybe faster than) an SSD anyway, but still it's kind of cool, the thought of having an Intel drive in my Playstation :whistle2:D

Should I go for it? Anyone done that? :lol: My poor Xbox is sitting there with a 5400RPM 20GB drive :lol:
 
I have heard somewhere here or maybe gamefaqs that someone has done this. This is new territory for me.

I say why not? If you have a drive already and worse could happen you have the previous drive available to go back to.
 
Loading game saves will be a bit faster with a SSD, as will XMB to game menu load times, but we're talking a few seconds difference at best. As far as loading games onto the SSD, you probably won't notice much of a speed increase because the BD drive will be a bottleneck. Since you said you don't need a lot of storage though, that might be a non-issue.

As someone who works with SSD's and lots of PC storage products in general, I can tell you that the best place for that SSD is in a PC....but, if you have nothing else to do with it then by all means put it in the PS3 or sell it to someone because it doesn't deserve to collect dust. :)
 
Well I DON'T have an SSD, was just thinking of buying one and using it instead of a spare Momentus XT :D

So...guess it's not worth it?

Love the Momentus XT in my notebook...not going to replace it with an SSD until I can get close to the same size it comes in for $400 or less, I think.
 
Since everyone knows what opinions are like, I might as well share my thoughts on the subject.

Why spend the money on a SSD when it will cost >=60% of the gaming system for little to no gain? On those same lines, why am I purchasing games that cost 20% of the system (I'm not since I'm on CAG, but just saying....).
 
[quote name='Wolfpup']Well I DON'T have an SSD, was just thinking of buying one and using it instead of a spare Momentus XT :D

So...guess it's not worth it?

Love the Momentus XT in my notebook...not going to replace it with an SSD until I can get close to the same size it comes in for $400 or less, I think.[/QUOTE]


Sorry, I misread your OP. I thought you had a SSD. Since you don't, I would say no, it's not worth it. You'd be paying a lot of money for a only a small increase in performance.
 
[quote name='jmbreci']
Why spend the money on a SSD when it will cost >=60% of the gaming system for little to no gain? On those same lines, why am I purchasing games that cost 20% of the system (I'm not since I'm on CAG, but just saying....).[/QUOTE]

not a good argument on the games for console. it's like asking yourself why buy gas for your car.
 
[quote name='frpilot']not a good argument on the games for console. it's like asking yourself why buy gas for your car.[/QUOTE]

Your logic is flawed....it is not like stating why buy gas for your car, gas needs to be added again and again. A better auto comparison would be like purchasing a Yaris and putting a Turbocharger in it.
 
It occurred to me too that the consoles (presumably) don't support TRIM...although on the other hand they don't have defragmentors either, so maybe the SSD still wins.

Dang, I REALLY wish the Xbox just used normal drives...you can put the whole freaking game on an SSD! How cool would that be? (Or even the Momentus XT you'd end up with over half at worst on the SLC flash).

And nope, I didn't see that other thread. Thanks for the link xycury!

Wish they'd compared it to an Intel drive though rather than Samsung...Samsung's sort of good for the OEMs, but bottom of the barrel in a lot of ways....although I guess still faster, so...

I wonder how much quieter the system would end up? That could be another consideration for me.

I swaped drives tonight, and was impressed by how ridiculously easy Sony made it. MUCH easier than on either of the last two notebooks I did it on (and both of them are much easier than some notebooks).

Ha ha, I'll have to post if I actually do buy the SSD. I SHOULD just get the 40 'cause that's fine for me, but then I'm thinking 80, only the 120 isn't much more...
 
The big issue with SSDs in a PS3, like any OS that doesn't support TRIM, is that you'll run into performance issues due to the cleanup that is needed on the SSD.

SSDs have their place, though it's in a system with an OS that supports TRIM.

This was a good article about 7200RPM 2.5" HDDs, which ran some good comparisons between four of those type of drives, some 2.5" 5400RPM drives, some desktop drives and some SSDs:
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/20037

Give you a good idea of how SSDs compare to mechanical drives, and they're not always the optimal choice for every single instance.
 
Yeah, I thought of that last night except at the same time these systems also don't support defragmentation, so I think an SSD could potentially degrade less, since a lot of them sort of degrade to a certain point and then quit...like I think Intel's drives typically do fine. I think Sandforce ones do too? Crucial's doesn't though, it needs TRIM...I mean they all need TRIM, but I don't think their performance completely dies without it.

Still...it would be nice if that got added...something actually useful to add to the firmware!
 
Wow, that's a pretty big difference it load times. We'll see if it helps for anything I play...

I've still got a 120GB Intel drive on order with Amazon. Hopefully it'll ship before I want to play the system!
 
[quote name='Wolfpup']Yeah, I thought of that last night except at the same time these systems also don't support defragmentation, so I think an SSD could potentially degrade less, since a lot of them sort of degrade to a certain point and then quit...like I think Intel's drives typically do fine. I think Sandforce ones do too? Crucial's doesn't though, it needs TRIM...I mean they all need TRIM, but I don't think their performance completely dies without it.

Still...it would be nice if that got added...something actually useful to add to the firmware![/QUOTE]

Actually, a bigger issue is paging. This is a common operation on computer operating systems that is the primary reason wear leveling functions are built into SSD controllers. Consoles generally do little or no paging, so it isn't an issue by and large.

Fragmentation is also a far, far lesser issue for the usage pattern of a console's drive. A desktop OS like Windows or OS X deals in zillions of tiny files, many of them frequently altered and saved to disc during paging operations or just to record state changes between sessions. As the primary application of console hard drives is to store partial or whole game images, this isn't much of an issue. Even more so if the console OS is designed to segregate save files and other small files away from the main area given over to game data. You'd really have to generate a LOT of game saves to get the kind of file structure that makes problems on a PC drive.

Even then, save games are less prone to causing fragmentation. Most games have known maximum size needed for its saves, so this is easily reserved on the first usage. So the file may be rewritten many times over the usage of the game, but it doesn't change the discs sector usage. And the save process would have to be ridiculously chatty and frequent to cause any notable wear to the flash cells involved.

A game that saved a lot of player generated data might be create unpredictable file sizes, though there are ways to control that. In general, most of the concerns of an SSD in a Windows or Mac box don't apply to consoles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top