Yes or no to SSD in Playstation

Another thing caught my eye while browsing today, and it's Eurogamer's analysis of gains if SSD is added to PS4:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-is-it-worth-upgrading-your-ps4-with-an-ssd

They've listed comparision tables for several games and in some cases the significant difference is definetly there, for example some game's I've never heard of area, Bloodborne - Central Yharnam, instead of 40 seconds with SSD loads in just 17 seconds!

But some other games, like fasttravel to Woesong Bridge in The Witcher 3 for example, from 46 seconds loading time gets only to 36 seconds.

What they conclude is that getting SSD in PS4 depends on games someone plays. I'd say that too - if we could see some data about each and every game out there. But as things stand now, I don't think this expensive upgrade is worth it on PS4.

Meanwhile on PC... SSD improves basically everything, while loadtimes in some games might be just as insignificant as seen on Eurogamer's comparision PS4 tables, PC owner gets faster OS, faster browsing and faster everything.

So, Joxer loves PC and hates consoles, thx for the breaking news.

My hate for useless gadgetery that stalls the industry progress doesn't matter here.

What matters is if upgrading some stuff is efficient and can justify the price of an upgrade. Assuming Eurogamer's tests were not fabricated and are trustworthy I really don't see any reason to spend money on SSD in a console.
Currently of course. It's still possible that in the future whatever happens inside those consoles is tought how to get significant benefits from SSD in every product. But I wouldn't put much hope into it, probably PS5 and XBtwo will have SSD as a standard part inside.

My love for PC also doesn't mean I'll praise i7 all day long. Not once I've posted that I currently see no reason to go for i7 as the overall performance gain just can't justify the price difference.

In both cases, if one is a hotel owner, of course, can and will buy the most expensive thing. For usual mortals investing into so called hardware for "enthusiasts" which should read for "filthy rich" is just… Illogical.

Oh, so you just posted this to help out ps4 owners on wether or not to put in SSD in to their console.

I must have been confused because your post read more like " see, inferior consoles can't even take advantage of SSD like PC's can, nana nana bobo".

My mistake.

You're mixing timings.

If after I've posted this someone buys SSD for console, gets sad because it doesn't do much then I can go nana nana bobo - "I told you so".
Doing it before someone steps on the turd would be retarded.

Im just having a bit of fun Joxer. I'm a PC first guy as well, just not a PC only guy.

I'm a PC and Playstation guy. I won't put an SSD in either one yet. The capacity isn't there yet (at a reasonable price) and on average, an SSD can't handle as many reads/writes before it fails. Both of these will improve greatly over time, but I'm not ready to take the plunge just now.

Years ago SSD read/write cycles were bad but I personally dont have bad experience with them currently. I've used them heavily at work and I'd rather have SSD any day of the week. We also do moderate writes on small drives (16 GB drives with writes on order of 1 MB/s continuously on files that rotate every 10 MB) These drives are the shittiest Transcends on the market and honestly I've only seen a couple dozen drive failures in 6 years on several hundred instances. The bad part is really that when they go you can basically lose everything but generally not true with traditional drives which just have bad sectors. (I'm aware of the SLC/MLC difference and still use MLC drives at home with out issue).

At home my NAS box has 5 - 3 GB Seagate drives that seem to have lasted about 18 months on average on very light write load before they failed. Different manufacturers/batches make a bigger difference in lifespan than type of drive these days it would seem.

The speed difference with a quality SSD can be astounding for a lot of things especially if its IO heavy and I'll probably never go back to large capacity rotational drives at this point unless capacity was the main concern. Now I just install the current game I'm playing on my SSD and when I'm done either move to the slow bigger drives or delete.

Back to the topic. Not sure I'd put an SSD in a console as I'd probably rather have capacity and use the SSD in my PC but might if it actually made a difference on some poorly optimized game. Some of those hybrids with some flash cache could be a good compromise in these cases.

Anyone try with something like Skyrim/Fallout 4 because that could make a big difference since those are notoriously poorly optimized.

I would say 'no' to SSD in Playstation. You don't load that much on consoles. After the initial load, chances are you'll be playing quite a while in the map. Move to next map, load again but this time it usually only takes a few seconds.

Considering games in consoles are huuuuge, a SSD would fill up pretty fast. I'd go for a bigger capacity HDD instead and save the money.