How small solid state HD could the PS3 have?

[Crossbar]

I've been thinking about the possible ways for Sony to cost reduce the PS3 and produce a stripped down version to become more price competetive.

The hard drive is one obvious obstacle to cut costs. There have been speculations that it will eventually be replaced with solid state flash memory some where down road when the flash memory has become cheap. Those speculations have assumed that the required minimum size of the SS HD would be 20 GB, the same as in the original "tard" version.

But does it really need to be 20 GB? What are the minimum requirements to a have a fully working PS3. How much of the HD is reserved for the OS, how much is reserved for a game cache, how much is reserved for saved game data etc., what minimum space would be needed to download a full copy of Warhawk?

If we assume that Sony would want to make a low priced entry model similar to the 20 GB model that later could be upgraded by buying a 2.5 HD, how small could they make a SS HD on the PCB and still claim it´s a fully working PS3?

I haven´t found some recent updates of the PS3 bill of material, but for the 360 Elite, iSupply assumed the 120 GB HD would cost $43. By studying the price difference of 2.5 HDs I estimate 20,60,80 GB HDs may cost about $5 less to buy from the manufacturer.

If we study the current flash contract memory prices found here, we find that 8Gb 1024Mx8 MLC NAND chips can found for $6.7, that is $6.7 / GB.

If we speculate that it would be possible to make a fully working PS3 with a 6 GB SS HD the price ($40.2) would be comparable to the price of the current HD. That obviously makes it pretty bad value for the money, but given the current price trend for NAND it may soon be a viable alternative, maybe the price/GB will go below $5 late fall.

"NAND flash costs are nearing a point where makers of MP3 music players can add enough capacity to support video content, which requires significantly more storage than audio," said Chris Crotty, senior analyst, consumer electronics, for iSuppli. "The average cost of NAND flash memory will decline by 47.1% per year from 2005 to 2010."

(link )

If 6 GB isn't sufficient it will take longer time, maybe 8 GB or 10 GB is required or maybe the full 20 GB is indeed required for some compatibility reason. Any thoughts about what the actual minimum size required could be?

 

[DieH@rd]

PS3 version of Oblivion installs 4.4Gb of gamedata... Thats the biggest install I have ever seen on ps3.

 

[Crossbar]

PS3 version of Oblivion installs 4.4Gb of gamedata... Thats the biggest install I have ever seen on ps3.

That sounds like a lot (I assume you mean 4.4 GB). Is that an optional installation to speed up start-up times or is it really required?
I mean if every game would require that, you could only install about 3 games on the 20 GB version.

 

[Rangers]

PS3 version of Oblivion installs 4.4Gb of gamedata... Thats the biggest install I have ever seen on ps3.

Yeah but the 20GB 360 only ends up with like 13GB free.

20GB=18.6GB in reality (due to that HDD size thing). Then you have a lot of system stuff preloaded.

Anyways, PS3 is using 50 GB Blu_Ray discs (25GB currently), so if we're told all that storage is needed, it seems a lot of HDD space is needed for installs also. If not, you're back to loading frequently.

I dont think 6GB is enough. It also leaves no room for downloading content. Would basically be PS3 tard pack.

I'd say minimum is 20GB. 40GB really, for my purposes (as I really dont like the 20GB on 360, it just feels too cramped).

Anyways, I dont like built in HDD in consoles. They are not worth it and are a cost center, and also make the machines very big (PS3, Xbox 1).

I also dont know if it's possible, but using 3.5" HDD's might have been nice if it could have been done form factor wise. You could get much larger capacity for similar price. However, laptop HDD prices are probably falling rapidly anyway, making it soon moot (but I could be wrong).

 

[Mmmkay]

That sounds like a lot (I assume you mean 4.4 GB). Is that an optional installation to speed up start-up times or is it really required?
I mean if every game would require that, you could only install about 3 games on the 20 GB version.

It's not optional. The game disc even spins down and doesn't get used once you start playing.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Hows the performance on those flash sticks compared to a HDD?

 

[Crossbar]

Hows the performance on those flash sticks compared to a HDD?

The actual performance depends on how you choose to organise your flash chips and the read/write characteristics of those chips, but here is a comparision where they have an implementation of a flash drive with a SATA interface.

The SanDisk SSDs can push 67 MB/sec in sustained reads, and have much faster random read speeds than traditional hard drives. According to SanDisk, an SSD drive can boot Windows Vista in as little as 30 seconds, and access files at an average speed just over a tenth of a millisecond. Conversely, booting from a traditional notebook hard drive takes an average of 48 second, and the drives need 17 ms to access a file.

An implementation on the mainboard would certainly have better numbers than those. The most obvious benefit of the flash memory is that the search times are eliminated.

 

[Crossbar]

I dont think 6GB is enough. It also leaves no room for downloading content. Would basically be PS3 tard pack.

Yeah, I was thinking in terms of a low entry tard pack, but of course it must be able to install any PS3 game.

If there indeed are games requiring a minimum of 4.4 GB space to play (Oblivion) that sets the size requirement quite high. Maybe 10 GB would fit the bill, that would mean we will not see a solid state HD equiped tard-pack this year, maybe late next year.

 

[inefficient]

Anyways, I dont like built in HDD in consoles. They are not worth it and are a cost center, and also make the machines very big (PS3, Xbox 1).

You do realize that the Xbox1 used PC desktop standard sized 3.5" HDD right? And that the PS3 and 360 don't?

2.5" drives are very tiny and add very little to the overall size of the console. They are very thin too. Only about 5mm thick.

Here is a photo I just took of the PS3's HD. Next to it is a Microdrive HDD from an Ipod mini (back from when they still had HDDs). And then some coins for size comparison.

Anyway people have to get out of their heads that mass storage systems make consoles big and expensive. It's 2007 for christ's sakes. It's a totally different world from the one the XBox1 was launched in. Those parallels are not going to be relevant this gen.

 

[archangelmorph]

Yeah but the 20GB 360 only ends up with like 13GB free.

20GB=18.6GB in reality (due to that HDD size thing). Then you have a lot of system stuff preloaded.

It's actually worse than that..

When I first opened my Xbox360 I checked the available storage capacity and it sat somwhere around 8GB.. 8 F***ing GB available from a 20GB HDD!!!

Eventually I checked what was on there and found the HDD came pre-loaded with a load of HD videos of... well... crap.. So I deleted it all and it gave me back a few GBs..

Still I haven't seen the available storage go any higher than 10.3GBs to date..

 

[Crossbar]

Anyway people have to get out of their heads that mass storage systems make consoles big and expensive. It's 2007 for christ's sakes. It's a totally different world from the one the XBox1 was launched in. Those parallels are not going to be relevant this gen.

I partially agree, but I think the current situation has proven that price is king.

The customers representing the mass market do not think in terms of life cycle costs, they don´t care if they later down the road have to invest in a larger hard drive or if they after a year have to pay a subscription fee to be able to have full access to online play, their main focus is the sum printed on the price tag of the console.

If Sony later on may be able to shave off an extra $20 by using a flash drive, that may help them reach a lower price point to better compete with the 360's tard pack and the Wii.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I partially agree, but I think the current situation has proven that price is king. [/quorw]As I've voiced before, the price difference caused by the HDD shouldn't be enough to make a difference. If the PS3 were only $20 more expensive minimum price versus the XB360, no-one's going to base their purchasing decision on that. All the other factors come into play. PS2 proved this last gen, being pricier than the rivals but still the console of choice because it had the software. Only when the price difference in $hundreds does it matter, and an HDD here or there isn't going to impact that to a huge degree.

As for flash drives, as a choice now I think it's not an option, but in a few years, 20GB might well be cheaper than the equivalent HDD. That'd allow a smaller box too. The real place to look for Flash IMO is the PSP, where 2 GB's embedded to serve as a game disk cache (of either cached games from UMD or 'downloaded' titles) will extend battery life considerably and improve the experience. This size Flash wasnt an option at PSP's release, but it could foreshadow developments with the consoles through embedded Flash (kinda like Wii I guess).

 

[Todd33]

Anyways, I dont like built in HDD in consoles. They are not worth it and are a cost center, and also make the machines very big (PS3, Xbox 1).

The PS3 is big because of the built in PSU, not really the tiny 2.5" HD. I prefer this over the large unwieldy external 360 brick.

 

[DieH@rd]

That sounds like a lot (I assume you mean 4.4 GB). Is that an optional installation to speed up start-up times or is it really required?
I mean if every game would require that, you could only install about 3 games on the 20 GB version.

Yes I meant to say GB.

Can someone tell me witch game offers custom/optional installation? So far every game i encountered has fixed "non negotiable" instalation.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I dont think the HDD will do much for the decrease in costs. How much would it cost to make a 20gb disk? not alot I think. You have 500gb disks selling for under 100 euro's, So what will a 20gb disk cost? 30euro's? Not even close I think as its a very small disk based on old tech. But even if it was, they could what half that with solid state memory? thats still only 15 euro's. Ofcourse that becomes alot if you start talking millions of ps3's but it wont do that much in terms of reducing costs.

Ofcourse all numbers are pulled out of my ass and I have no idea how close/far off I am.

 

[infinity4]

are we talking about HDD costs or ways of reducing ps3 price by removal of features like HDMI output???

 

[Gradthrawn]

Yes I meant to say GB.

Can someone tell me witch game offers custom/optional installation? So far every game i encountered has fixed "non negotiable" instalation.

Genji, RR, and VF5 (though it seems to prompt you every time you start the game).

 

[Zassk]

The biggest cost savings would have come from making the hard disk totally optional, as in the 360. Then only a nominal amount of "memory card" storage would be required for normal usage (which could be embedded as the Wii has done). Unfortunately PS3 has already crossed this bridge and will probably always need a storage disk.

A console doesn't need the speed of NAND flash memory, it just needs low cost. Why not use one of the little 1-inch and 1.5-inch hard drives that used to be all the rage in MP3 players, such as the Hitachi one seen in inefficient's picture? Those must be reasonably priced today when purchased in quantity.

A 4-6 GB micro disk would be more than enough to download demos, patches and arcade games, and hold a ton of game saves. And it would fit into a "slimline" console case nicely.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Arnt those small hdd's actually more expensive to produce because of their size? A standard size 20gb disk would probably be cheaper.

 

["Nerve-Damage"]

Little off topic...

The PS3 is big because of the built in PSU, not really the tiny 2.5" HD. I prefer this over the large unwieldy external 360 brick.

I just wonder how much cooler, smaller, and the added breathing room (clocking speed) the RSX core/memory would receive, if the PSU wasn’t built into the PS3.