7200 rpm vs. SSD

[Conza]

Hi all, its long been known that by default all PS3s come with a 2x speed Blu-ray which is slow, and a 5400rpm drive, which isn't much better, but is ultimately the prefered location for game files that are constantly being accessed, to reduce load time.

Now I'm a big GT5 user, I have installed 1X gb of data there, about half of my total odd 30 gb on my 250gb default ps3 hdd.

So now I'm looking to upgrade. Mostly because my laptop's 4 year old hdd is dying, so I want to use my current ps3 drive as a replacement, but before I can do that, I need s replacement for 'it'. Yes, I could just replace my laptops drive, but the laptop won't last long, so downgrading it from a 320gb 5400 to a 250gb 5400, and spending the $100 bucks on the ps3 is a better investment.

If I were buying an SSD for a computer I'd likely select a 128GB, as that is the current logical price point, but I can save a bit of scratch, as I don't forsee my PS3 needing that much, and go for a 64GB instead.

Here's my problem though. I've read a review comparing a 5400, 7200 and a Sata II SSD, and the 7200 didn't perform much worse than the SSD, and at times, it beat the SSD (which virtually leads you to think the difference between the two wouldn't be noticiable).

The other problems are, A. while its tempting to save... 20-50 bucks on getting a much much larger 7200, the review didn't test GT5, and B. if for GT5 an SSD is better, than I've theoretically wasted money on extra space which I'll never use (maximum I could possibly imagine without turning my PS3 into a media PC, is 50GB, so 64GB would cover that no worries).

While unlikely, I'm hoping someone here has tried both a 7200 and an SSD whilst playing GT5 - if I had the dough I'd do the test myself, but I don't, and I do need a replacement hdd for my laptop, so there I am.

Even if you just bought an SSD or a 7200 (especially the latter), it would be great to hear from you, no doubt if you only selected one the performance jump will be compared to the 5400 rpm, but I'd like to hear why you chose your selection anyway.

Thanks for reading - Discuss!

 

[Shaun]

Check this out mate, it may help you decide.

https://www.gtplanet.net/gran-turismo-5-load-times-significantly-reduced-by-ps3-ssd-upgrade/

Cheers Shaun

 

[Conza]

Hi Shaun, thanks but it doesn't really (Hey another Victorian, nice to meet you).

That says an SSD is faster than a 5400, which everyone already knows, what 'I' want to know, is, "Is it more beneficial to have an SSD or a 7200RPM drive?" I can get a 500GB 7200 for about 90 bucks, and I can get a 64GB SSD for around $100, so regardless of the fact size doesn't matter (to me), why should I spend more money for less capacity if it won't do anything more?

That's the real question, will an SSD perform significantly more than a 7200? I'm leaning toward no at this point, but if anyone had a test like that, which included GT5, that'd really answer my question.

 

[somebodysb2]

SSD's are-
hell of a lot more reliable
WAY faster (dependent on chip, try Sandforce or Crucial)

But its simply not worth it, PS3 is a console which WILL get replaced, SSD's are meant for computers, not consoles which gets replaced every 5 or so years.

 

[Conza]

SSD's are-
hell of a lot more reliable
WAY faster (dependent on chip, try Sandforce or Crucial)

But its simply not worth it, PS3 is a console which WILL get replaced, SSD's are meant for computers, not consoles which gets replaced every 5 or so years.

Yes I think in recent years your initial statement has become true, but it took alot of tears to get that to be a reality, it was a stark contrast to say, 2006, when people wouldn't touch SSDs for lack of a usable lifespan.

Also, there's no reason that the SSD I may/may not buy, would be permenantly placed in the PS3, its likely it will considering technology change and that the PS4 won't be coming until mid-2013, the whole point is that I want to spend about $100 bucks on a new drive, it might as well be my PS3, since the fact it needs replacing some time in the future is moot to me, since my laptop will surely be replaced first, as a stop gap to that replacement, I want to use the existing hdd in my PS3, so therefore performance boost my PS3 with a 7200rpm or SSD.

I think the test I'm looking for, is someone who bought a 7200 and a SSD, and compared general PS3 performance between the two, with the essential test being GT5, but also other games that are HDD intensive.

 

[somebodysb2]

No, I mean as in shock proof and durability. The whole reason why I upgraded my Laptop to a 64GB SSD and do all my file storage with a external 1TB HDD as the last laptop didn't last even long at all (I travel with my computer). So if you do a lot of LAN parties then you may wanna look into that.

 

[oze]

I've had a 7200rpm hard disk in my PS3 for about 3 years for now. All I can say is good things. 👍

Loading times are faster than with 5400rpm. Games like Skyrim doesn't freeze, slow or crash as much. (Compared to friends using 5400rpm).
Only thing is that my fat old PS3 gets time to time a little bit more noisier because of the added heat. But it was really noisy even before the upgrade.

In GT5 you would get even faster loading times with an SSD bit in most of the other games the loading times just can't get any faster from 7200rpm.

There is a one problem with an SSD mounted in PS3:
-PS3 doesn't support TRIM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIM
So SSD's performance won't be a lasting joy in PS3...
You might have to from time to time take out the SSD, mount it to a PC and do trimming with it.
Also PS3's max. read and write speeds aren't really high so you would get only 20-30% from what a modern SSD could do in a PC.

If you are ready to do TRIMming work with your PC, SSD is good choice. Otherwise go get the 7200rpm. Faster hard drive saves your time and nerves when gaming!

edit: actually I don't know if you are capable to do trimming with your PC because of PS3's own way of file handling... someone should check this out.

 

[BWX]

I got this one from Newegg and it works great.

Western Digital Scorpio Black WD5000BEKT 500GB 7200 RPM 2.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Internal Notebook Hard Drive -Bare Drive
$69.99

 

[Veritech]

I have a 500GB hybrid HDD/SSD in one PS3 and a 64GB SSD in another, and in terms of GT5, both are signficant improvements over 7200rpm, which in itself is an improvement over 5400.

The differences (in my opinion are):
SSD > Hybrid >> 7200 > 5400

The biggest jump is between 7200rpm and anything with SSD technology.

It does not make the game run any faster or "better". But load times are signficantly shortened. It doesn't mean much perhaps, but it really does enhance the user experience (such as gaining control when the GT5 main menu pops up), or in games like Assassin's Creed Revelations in multiplayer mode, where your avatars appear load much more quickly during the character selection process. For games that heavily cache to the HDD it's quite useful there too.

 

[omgitsbees]

Being able to turn my computer off at night, wake up in the morning, turn it on, and poof! Windows is already up and running fully within a second or so makes SSDs the best thing ever. Have one in my Macbook Pro and same deal there, they are great.

 

[nick09]

SSD's are-
hell of a lot more reliable
WAY faster (dependent on chip, try Sandforce or Crucial)

But its simply not worth it, PS3 is a console which WILL get replaced, SSD's are meant for computers, not consoles which gets replaced every 5 or so years.

HDD's still last for years and years. If there is a problem with an SSD you would be lucky if you can access your data. It either works or it doesn't. I had an SSD die before where it had 5 I/O errors(input & output) where it would not access data after 5 minutes after being powered on. SSD's have not matured to be stable and have a long life yet. I would just suggest a 7200RPM drive. The difference in speed and cost is worth an extra few seconds to own a 7200RPM drive. A 256GB SSD sells for $310-$400. A 7200RPM HDD is far cheaper at the same size.

 

[Conza]

I have a 500GB hybrid HDD/SSD in one PS3 and a 64GB SSD in another, and in terms of GT5, both are signficant improvements over 7200rpm, which in itself is an improvement over 5400.

The differences (in my opinion are):
SSD > Hybrid >> 7200 > 5400

The biggest jump is between 7200rpm and anything with SSD technology.

It does not make the game run any faster or "better". But load times are signficantly shortened. It doesn't mean much perhaps, but it really does enhance the user experience (such as gaining control when the GT5 main menu pops up), or in games like Assassin's Creed Revelations in multiplayer mode, where your avatars appear load much more quickly during the character selection process. For games that heavily cache to the HDD it's quite useful there too.

Can't see how that works, I've gone for the 7200, and the improvement over the 5400 is amazing, but its basically at the limit.

I read an articile about the PS3, it's limited to SataII, so it basically showed that the 7200 was neither faster or slower (performed marginally better/worse in the comparison, meaning the difference was non-existent).

So I think the real answer is this - unless you really did try 7200 rpm first, and found for GT5 that was faster, then the hybrid was faster than that, then the ssd was still faster than the hybrid, I really think the computer analysis for these drives doesn't apply, because in those scenarios the motherboards can handle sata II connections, most games don't require that the disc be read during play at all, so that's basically it.

SSD = Hybrid = 7200 > 5400.

 

[Veritech]

So I think the real answer is this - unless you really did try 7200 rpm first, and found for GT5 that was faster, then the hybrid was faster than that, then the ssd was still faster than the hybrid, I really think the computer analysis for these drives doesn't apply, because in those scenarios the motherboards can handle sata II connections, most games don't require that the disc be read during play at all, so that's basically it.

Bingo.

Indeed I did go with the 7200rpm HDD first, and then later upgraded to a Hybrid on one PS3. Then I got another PS3 and just outfitted it with an SSD from the beginning. My personal results agree with the Digital Foundry articles, in that the SSD was the fastest and the Hybrid was not all that far off from the SSD, especially once the data was cached into the flash part of the drive. Both are still faster than 7200rpm one, at least in Gran Turismo 5.

The issue isn't with SATA II or bandwidth. Rather, it's the seek time (time needed for the HDD head of a traditional drive to move to the proper spot) coupled with the large amounts of random access that happens that makes Hybrids and SSDs (with their near-zero seek times) load games like GT5 much more quickly.

The February 2012 Digital Foundry article on SSD upgrades talks about seek times as well near the beginning. It's worth a good read. Again, the focus is not on total SATA II throughput, but seek times.

 

[tlowr4]

If this helps at all:

On the subject of HDD durability, I had the stock Mac Hitachi 160GB HDD in my Mac for 3 years before it started to die (and I changed it before it did, so technically it still works and I've still got it, if you want a dieing drive ).

In that time, my Mac had been dropped 20+ times, ranging from highs from 2 inches, to 5 and a half feet, onto materials such as lino, carpet, and bare tarmac. The system had had water spilled in it, and around it, it had been flown from Rockhampton to Brisbane (700KM) in a small, un-padded box, with 🤬 shipping and handling from Australia Post. It'd followed me for thousands of kilometers to Brisbane and back. It's been roasted (major thermal issues with all the internal components, that drive hit temps of up to 65C), frozen (it was kinda left in front of an aircon that was set to perma-cool, and ice was spitting onto it), I have even taken the drive out and dropped it onto the kitchen floor (about 2ft). Yeah, the bare drive, without the case around it, and even so, the case is a carved out piece of solid Aluminium, no padding or shock reduction in it whatsoever.. I got 3 years out of that drive..

I could not destroy that :censored:ing thing. Towards the end of it's life, I started to get pissed off and annoyed at how the hell it survived what it had. It was almost as though I started trying to destroy it, and the harder I tried, the more it kept soldiering on. So, in all honesty, I think it depends on the drive, but all hard drives I've ever dealt with...well...I think everyone freaks out a bit much. I got a new 500GB drive installed, and while I am more careful with my Mac now, I know that there's gonna be some other component go (most likely the CPU fizzle out from the heat), before the hard drive will.

And in all honesty, I seriously don't think you'll be abusing your PS3 the way I abuse my poor girl.

 

[oze]

If this helps at all:
...

The problem in durability of SSD in PS3 is not the dropping or wetting your console. It's the lack of "trim" in PS3 vs PC's as I notified in my earlier post.

One question to anyone using SSD in PS3 for more than 2 years: has it slowed down for you from what it was in the beginning?