Sony considered SSD, network storage for PS3 Slim
By Donald Melanson 
posted December 14th 2009 5:51PM
posted December 14th 2009 5:51PM
Could the PS3 Slim have been even slimmer? It could have, according to Sony's Masayuki Chatani, but it would've cost you. That word comes from a wide-ranging interview Chatani gave to Tech-On!, in which he revealed (seemingly for the first time) that Sony had considered using SSD drives or even network storage to further reduce the size of the console. SSD drives were ultimately rejected, as you might have guessed, due to cost reasons, and Chatani says that network storage ultimately proved to still be simply too impractical for a game console. He also said that the PS3 could have been made slimmer if Sony had just left the power supply on the outside, but that would have "imposed restrictions on transport and use, making it harder to use freely." Not a whole lot in the way of big revelations otherwise, but you can check out the complete interview at the link below.
I'm glad they kept interchangeable HDD's, and its slim enough already...
@B3astofthe3ast
Yeah, and you can add a SSD if you want, so it's not a major downer.
If you want the hardware, all you have to do is pay up.
@B3astofthe3ast
I'm not sure if the performance of an SSD is actually needed?
If the Blu Ray disc can be fast enough a regular hard drive should be more than good. (9MB/s vs 200+ MB/s)
Correction... forgot it's a 2.5" drive, so around 60-80MB/s. But it's still way faster than a disc.
@ToniCipriani
Whichever site it was tested the PS3 with an SSD, I think the story was posted here? The times were almost exactly the same so not really worth it.
I just picked up a PS3 a couple of weeks ago and it is so much better looking and quieter than my Elite. The lack of a power brick was a HUGE plus.
@B3astofthe3ast
I think the point with going to an SSD is that they could have made a something like a 16 or 32GB PS3 and made the machine cheaper. As SSD prices fall we may see a SSD PS3 yet.
...Maybe a $199 16GB PS3 that is expandable with a non-proprietary HDD in the future some day?
@Monkey Fetish
That might actually be a very viable idea. Today, a 2.5" 120GB HDD will run you about $50, while you can find a 32GB SSD for under $100 if you're good about looking. I can easily see prices changing in the favor of the SSD a year or two from now.
That may actually be the way for them to break into a lower priced market. If they change the inner workings of the PS3 to allow it to take full advantage of SSDs speeds, they could claim faster boot up and read/write times with a 2.5" expansion for more storage.
@Monkey Fetish
If they wanted to cut cost they would NOT go with an SSD. A 16GB SSD is still around $60-$150 depending on the read/write speeds. And seeing as it was reported that the performance increase of an SSD compared to a HDD is negligible you could get a 250GB 2.5 inch HDD for the same price and be much better off. So if anything the addition of an SSD version of the PS3 would eliminate the noise of the hard drive but cost a bit more. But if they wrote drivers and software to make SSD's perform better then yes there would be a good reason to consider paying a bit more for an SSD version.
@(Unverified) Gamespot did it. It didn't matter most of the time when the game from running by Blu-Ray because then the speed was limited by the read speed of the Blu-Ray drive. If you bought the game off PSN and ran it off your SSD, it would be much faster.
@James
The tests done by GameSpot only applied to using an older 2.5" SATA II 3.0Gbps MLC SSD in replacement of the current 2.5" SATA II 3.0Gbps 5400RPM HDD. If you were to attach the SSD directly to the board, the speeds you would see couldn't possibly be compared to a 5400RPM HDD because they'd be so incredibly fast.
Seriously. Go look at the new OCZ SSD drives. They attach directly to the motherboard through PCI Express 2.0 x8 and run at read and write speeds of over 750MBps and 650MBps respectively. Those speeds aren't possible on SATA II because the fastest byte rate you could even see would be 375MBps. Given that top of the line SATA 3.0Gbps SLC SSDs run at read and write speeds of 250MBps and 200MBps respectively, you can see there's a huge difference.
Not that you'd be getting PCIe 2.0 x8 speeds necessarily, but I'm just saying, the bottle neck is SATA, not the SSD. If, in the future when a 32GB SSD was cheaper then a 100GB-200GB HDD, it'd be a possible alternative to cut costs and increase the boot speed and loading speed of data from the hard drive.
And as an aside, as someone already mentioned, one of GameSpot's tests was seeing how long game installs took. The bottle neck there is the 2x BD drive which has a max transfer rate of 9MBps, and is the reason you even need to install games to the hard drive in the first place. The fastest SSD in the world couldn't help speed that up. You'd only see speed increases when reading or writing with no relation to the game discs.
Did anyone care how slim it was in the first place?
@WhatHappened
Yes. I can now fit it perfectly into my already cramped up room. Originally, I would have had to choose between my 360 or a PS3 phat, but now I can fit the PS3 Slim next to my computer. Also, I think it looks a lot nicer considering.
@WhatHappened Apparently, people claimed to have problems with it being too big.
But let's be real here, It's sitting in your entertainment center probably not going anywhere for the next 4 years. Unless you're THAT guy who has to constantly bring it to other people's houses to rub it in their faces, and if that's the case, you deserve to carry that big thing around.
...OK maybe my example was a bit too literal, but I agree; I have no problems with the size of my original. Hell, I didn't even sell it when I got the Slim.
@Special Agent Steve and taking your situation into thought, a smaller size is better for cramped spaces.
@N900 That's what she said...
In your case, it was preceeded by "oh... well, I GUESS-"
@N900 Well no, there are plenty legit reasons to move the console around. Going to a friend's place to chill =/= show off. Also for switching dorms, or if you move around once every few years ... it all helps.
To be fair that huge power brick that comes with the xbox makes it such a pain to even move to another room.
@feelthevibe A lb or 2 is too much for you? 0_o
@feelthevibe
I agree. Compared to my original Xbox 360 that has the fat power supply, VGA cord, and optical cable making a complete mess all around my TV, the PS3 Slim's little power cable and HDMI cable are much nicer. I know, new Xbox's of course use HDMI, but I'm not going to just go buy another one now...
@(Unverified)
it has nothing to do with the weight
Aren't SSDs only available in sizes that laptop hard drives are anyway (1.8/2.5)? How would it make it thinner? ...Soldered straight onto the board?
@JKLionheart First Google result for me, SanDisk's netbook SSD is 55x32x4.4mm; given Seagate just announced their super-thin 7mm drive, it seems like this would allow for about 2.6mm more slimness even than that. (Yes, it's not particularly smaller in area, but it still is thinner.)
@JKLionheart
they make SSDs in smaller sizes for OEM applications. Google "netbook SSD" and check out the images. They make 2.5" and 3.5" ones for people that want to add it to existing hardware.
-Taylor
@JKLionheart
And even if it were soldered, how much could the difference be, a couple of millimeters thinner total?
@JKLionheart They make a lot of PS3s. They get custom components.
@JKLionheart Actually, my last comment was a bit stupid... Obviously you've already considered that.
Honestly, I think what they did with the Slim was good enough. It's smaller, lighter, quieter, more energy efficient, and has a larger hard drive. For a price that's $100 less, I think that's a pretty damn good deal. As long as they keep the option to swap the hard drive, which they did, then you could throw in an SSD (or 7200RPM drive for that matter) if you wanted to. As far as I'm concerned, they did alright.
They're already loosing $40 for every Slim they sell. It's hard to ask for much more then that when value wise it's far superior to what you get in a 360 (Bluetooth, Blu-ray, Wi-Fi, controller with built in battery and USB charge cable, etc). And let's not forget about that last comment. The fact that I don't have to lug around some stupid power brick when I travel and find a non flammable place to put it when in use is pretty sweet.
@kenny goo: You lug your PS3 around and travel with it? Pathetic. My friends has a slim...it's really not that much smaller. Honestly, it's not.
You don't hear people bitching and whining about having to lug their laptop power bricks around. Granted, most of them are smaller than the 360s, but they're still not bitching about it.
@Jordan
What the hell are you even talking about? I said I'm glad I never have to carry and extra power brick when I travel with my console. As in, the PS3, Slim or not, doesn't have a power brick, while the 360 does. The power brick is extremely heavy, many times heavier then any power brick of any laptop out there, and is thus quite the nuisance to carry around. In the article, they specifically mention how they could of slimmed down the console even more by removing the power brick, and I'm glad they didn't.
As for the Slim's size, it's a third lighter and a third smaller. Do you have sensory issues, are you speaking out of complete ignorance, or are you just lying to me to make a point? It may not be the same difference as the PS2 Slim which did have a power brick, but it's still a significant downsize.
As an aside, I forgot to mention how the Slim added support for CEC which allows the PS3 to be controlled through HDMI by a TV. Not something a lot of people will use, but it is a noteworthy addition.
@kenny goo: So a person weighs 500 pounds. They lose 10. By your standards of slim, they are now slim because they are a tiny fraction smaller.
Look at Sony's listed dimensions of the PS3 vs the slim. They are basically the same. Maybe it weighs less...cool, for that one time you have to lift it to place it on the shelf.
@Jordan
Can you read? I just said it was a third lighter and a third smaller. Do you know how much a third is? If that 500 pound man of yours was a third lighter, he'd weigh 167 pounds less. That's a pretty fucking significant weight loss. He would absolutely be a "slimmer" version of his former self. That's simple logic.
But that's besides the point. The PS3 Slim is quite a bit "slimmer". You gonna acknowledge your blatant ignorance on the facts are are we gonna continue this ridiculous back and forth?
@kenny goo: Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know you wanted to use the actual third measurements of the "slim". You're right, he would weigh 167 pounds less.
Is a 333lb man slim? No.
Why don't we do this. Why don't we just redesign the PS3 as the slim, and brand it the PS3. Stop production of all the 500lb man machines, and just have the slim. Don't call it the slim, call it the PS3, because the slim as it is is still one giant beast.
@Jordan
*Sigh* One more time then eh?
If all men were 500 pounds, and one suddenly decided to become 333 pounds, logically he would be a "slim" man. By that manner, if the new PS3 redesign is a third lighter and a third smaller then every single PS3 that came before it, which it is, then logically it would be a "slim" PS3, or what we call a PS3 Slim.
Is that really that hard to understand?
Oh, and you do realize the Slim is the industry term for it right? Like Sony has told all major retailers to just call it the PS3 online and in store for consumers, or use the term "120GB PS3" if clarification is necessary? So even if you defy the standard conventions of the English language, you're still wrong.
@kenny goo: Haha. I'm entertained by this, are you?
Whatever way you want to put it, the PS3 - slim or not - is a massive beast. By Sony's own measurements, they are both closely the same size. Lighter? Sure. But like I stated, that matters for that one time you take it out of the box and put it on the shelf..unless you're weird and travel with it...
@Jordan
The whole "look at me, I'm having a conversation with someone on the internet so let me act like I have a superiority complex" thing is really, really obnoxious. "I'm entertained by this, are you?" Did you really just say that? Get off your high horse kid. Moving on.
The Playstation 3 Slim is:
-33% smaller
-36% lighter
Those are FACTS. The original PS3 is by by no means "closely the same size" to the PS3 Slim. You are WRONG.
As for the traveling comment, while I don't travel with my consoles often, I travel with one or the other often enough for the potential convenience of a smaller size, lesser weight and the lack of a power brick (which I'm already enjoying the benefits of from my original PS3) to be appealing to me. I really don't think that's all that hard to understand.
PS3 Slim:
Dimensions (mm): 290 x 65 x 290 (5,466,500 mm sq)
Weight: 3.2kg
Xbox 360:
Dimensions (mm): 309 x 83 × 258 (6,616,926 mm sq)
Weight: 3.5kg
In case you can't figure it out yourself, that means that the 360 is heavier, thicker, wider, and takes up more physical space on a shelf then the Slim does. So no, compared to its technological competitor, the PS3 is by no means a "beast" in size. You are wrong.
@kenny goo fyi the new power bricks for the Jasper units (what they are selling now) are much lighter, no more than a third the weight of the original ones. however they're still they same size. i really don't have a problem with the brick, but it would be nice to have it built in.
@maveric101
Each of the 360's hardware revisions has continued to drop the power consumption of the unit, thus changing the power brick and the connectors it used, even if the size didn't change. That much I knew. I wasn't aware that the weight had decreased, though since the Jasper boards use like 25% less energy then the old Xenon and Zephyr motherboards, I guess the need for less power would mean less parts and less weight in the power brick.
I definitely agree with you here. The power brick is not the end of the world. I have a little spot for it in my entertainment center and I've managed to fit it somewhere when I move my console around, but it'd be nice if it was like the Slim, which does have it built in and it's still smaller and lighter then the 360.
If I had to guess, I'd say next year is gonna be a fresh start for Microsoft. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do a hardware revision, shrinking the size, weight, and power consumption along with maybe adding a thing or two. I figured you'd see a bare bones model with a small hard drive for $250, and a premium model for $350 with a large hard drive, something basic like a wired headset, and the Netal camera packed in.
Not only could they start fresh with less failure prone hardware, but they'd have a lower price point, they'd have a slimmer more appealing looking console, and they'd have a way to help push Netal into more homes and start selling Netal based games.
i'm glad they left the power supply inside, i'd rather have a slightly larger console than a brick taking up space in my room. I had how huge the 360s power brick is.
Wow so they actually considered making this thing more expensive. What a stupid company. Everybody knew the PS3 needed to cost less, and yet Sony looked at making it more expensive. I would find it entertaining to see what people's reactions would have been had the PS3 slim cost more.
@Jordan Notice they didn't make it more expensive? What a stupid person.
@Jordan
You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?
@Jordan I was about to explain your lack of logic and the reasoning behind this article but then I realized... you obviously can't read and/or comprehend much.
@(Unverified): "Sony had considered using SSD drives or even network storage to further reduce the size of the console. SSD drives were ultimately rejected, as you might have guessed, due to cost reasons"
Did you read? Sony considered making it more expensive. They didn't, obviously, but they considered it. Stupid
@(Unverified) :
Guess you fangirls can't stand a little bit of truth
@Jordan
Ever wonder why your comments have been down ranked to oblivion? IT'S BECAUSE YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE.
Like it the way it is. I feel this design a lot better than the original though.
network storage and ssd's are stupid.
@kjsin1994
Upon what do you base this inspired, profound insight? The falling cost and increasing adoption of SSDs, or the growing popularity of network storage in the consumer market?
Really, what motivated you to offer such an insipid comment?
Without a better Blu-Ray drive, there would be very little benefit to an SSD other than faster loading demos O_o. And maybe a LITTLE bit faster loading installed games.
But the big pain, the installs, would still take forever, simply because the current bluray drive simply can't read any faster.