• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The 20gig PS3 SUCKS (Need HDD recommends)

Bebpo

Banned
When going in to buy a PS3 I thought I had all the information and new what sort of informed choice I was making by purchasing a 20gig PS3 instead of a 60gig one. I didn't need wireless, I didn't need the card slots, and I certainly didn't need an extra 40gig space (I'm a deleter, I delete things A LOT).

Everything pointed to and everyone said that the 20gig PS3 was NOT the "retard" pack and would play games just as well as the 60gig PS3 and play Blu-ray films just as well too.

But it was a lie. The 20gig is as bad as the X360 core pack IMO. Why? Because the harddrive in the 20gig is SO ****ING SLOW.

Ok, I can live with the fact that Gripshift goes from "hey the load times are a little long" to borderline unplayable when using a 20gig instead of 60gig drive, but I CANNOT LIVE WITH VF5 LOAD TIMES BETWEEN EVERY MATCH. Sure they're only about 4-5 seconds with the 20gig (compared to probably 1-2 seconds with 60gig), but that's twice as long as VF4 loadtimes on PS2 and when you're going to be playing 1,000s of matches over the next year everytime those seconds add up to far too much for me to put up with.

Obviously the main problem at hand is that none of the developers realize this difference between the 60gig & 20gig speed and just use their 60gig speed dev kits and assume the game will play identically for everyone. Right now Gripshift & VF5 (the latter because it installs the entire game to the hard drive on runs off the HDD) are the only two that have VERY noticable differences in loading and get hurt BADLY with a 20gig, but that's because the PS3 has 'barely' been out. Over the next 5-10 years there will probably be TONS of games that are bogged down with long loadtimes or performance issues when using a 20gig hard drive. So to me, that's identical to the X360 core where games will have longer load times or perform worse on an X360 without a harddrive.

So the only solution for us 20gig people is that we NEED to replace the hard drive. So tonight or tomorrow I'm going to replace my hard drive so that I can enjoy playing VF5 with my friends without every load screen letting us have a conversation between matches.

With a budget of maybe $100-$150, what is the FASTEST PS3 size/compliant hard drive I can get? I don't care how big it is. 40gigs is fine, 60gigs is fine, etc...like I said I tend to delete stuff I'm not using. But I just want something FAST. I want no load times in my VF. So please recommend me a hard drive as fast, or even faster than the one that comes in the 60gig PS3 please. I'll either order it from Newegg or drive to the nearby CompUSA after work and buy it and install it ASAP.

Thanks,
 

Wollan

Member
Is there a speed difference in the specs between the two HDD's? Is the 60GB 7200rpm and the 20GB not?
 

Christopher

Member
<3 my 60 GB - silver stripe biatchhhh.

haha no seriously I have a question too, when you buy the external HDD do you say have your 60 gigs of space PLUS the additional harddrive space? Or can the PS3 only read one hard drive at a time?
 

LevelNth

Banned
I thought the PS3 could only utilize 5400rpm drives? Wouldn't this negate any difference between larger sizes other than of course the actual size?
 
I don't understand. I was aware that the PS3 had different sizes for HDD but I didn't know that the smaller one was slower. Are you sure? Has this been mentioned on any news sites?

The Dark One
 

SleazyC

Member
Anything with a large cache was reported to work much faster then a hard drive with faster RPMs. I'm not sure abotu 2.5" HDD's but I would go for an HDD with a 16MB cache if they are available in the 2.5" flavor.

EDIT - Only 2.5" with a 16MB cache that I could find was a Toshiba 100gig. Not sure on the quality of Toshiba's HDD's but it was the only one I could find. If you want to stick with an 8MB cache I would suggest Seagate. Err... or not looks like its 8MB as well. I'd say go with a Seagate then.
 

Jim

Member
DarkMage619 said:
I don't understand. I was aware that the PS3 had different sizes for HDD but I didn't know that the smaller one was slower. Are you sure? Has this been mentioned on any news sites?

The Dark One

Same exact RPMs, but the 60GB has a slightly larger cache. All the tests I've seen have showed them to be within the same transfer speed range, so something may be wrong.
 

Bebpo

Banned
Jim said:
Same exact RPMs, but the 60GB has a slightly larger cache. All the tests I've seen have showed them to be within the same transfer speed range, so something may be wrong.

No. Check the Gripshift thread.

All 20gig users have load times of 30-40 seconds. WAY TOO LONG.

All 60gig users have load times between 9-15 seconds. Decent.
 

LevelNth

Banned
Bebpo said:
No. Check the Gripshift thread.

All 20gig users have load times of 30-40 seconds. WAY TOO LONG.

All 60gig users have load times between 9-15 seconds. Decent.
I have a 20GB and there is no way the load times in Gripshift are 30-40 seconds. 20 max. Max.
 

Beatbox

alien from planet Highscore
LevelNth said:
I have a 20GB and there is no way the load times in Gripshift are 30-40 seconds. 20 max. Max.

I just checked one level on my 60GB system and it was 14 seconds.
 

Bebpo

Banned
LevelNth said:
I have a 20GB and there is no way the load times in Gripshift are 30-40 seconds. 20 max. Max.

Well I don't know what to say. I timed it over and over again with re-downloads and re-installs and it was always about 40 seconds if you include the "saving profile" part between levels, and ~31 without that part.

Mario then went on to say they've been receiving reports of load times around 30-40 seconds by 20gig users. So it's not an isolated incident.
 
That doesn't really make the 20GB any worse for me, because the majority of games don't make a difference. I plan to upgrade the HDD one day, but I'm waiting to get a good deal.

Saving $100 was still worth it. $600 is more than I'm ever willing to pay for a gaming console ($500 I can live with). 4-5 second long wait is normal for most fighting games IMO. Power Stone on PSP is around 20 seconds or more, between fights.
 
LevelNth said:
I have a 20GB and there is no way the load times in Gripshift are 30-40 seconds. 20 max. Max.

I have a 20 gig drive as well and can corroborate Bebpo's 40 sec loadtimes for Gripshift (in between levels). It's horrible, pretty much killed the game for me unfortunately. I haven't had any loading problems with Resistance, Fight Night, Full Auto 2 or Tiger Woods so I chalked it up as an isolated case, but hearing VF5 suffers a bit is disappointing.
 

Chrono

Banned
Would it help to get a HDD with faster cache than the 60GB one? If games are being optimized for either 60 or 20 gigabyte PS3s, I'm assuming there's no need to go higher than the 60GB with anything except size...? I'm buying a 60GB one soon but this thread got me thinking about also getting a new + faster HDD for it too.
 
I guess I'll have to throw out my 20gig PS3 now...

NOT!!!

Who cares about this nonsense. Games load just fine.

The problem with Gripshift is Gripshift. Game isn't that good.
 

SleazyC

Member
Chrono said:
Would it help to get a HDD with faster cache than the 60GB one? If games are being optimized for either 60 or 20 gigabyte PS3s, I'm assuming there's no need to go higher than the 60GB with anything except size...?

I'm buying a 60GB one soon but this thread got me thinking about a new HDD to go along with it too.
You might see small gains but I'm not sure. I think that the 60gig has a 8MB cache and it looks like the only SATA 2.5" HDDs out there are all 8MB cache so I'm not sure if you could get something faster then what is in the 60gig at the moment.
 
The 20Gb is BETTER than the 60GB because you can use that $100 savings to pop in a 100Gb disk. All it has to be is a 2.5" SATA drive. If you want speed, get a big cache and a fast RPM.
 

cvxfreak

Member
Bebpo, look on websites that also specialize in Mac components. The MacBook and PS3 use the same hard drive type, so you may find what you're looking for there.
 

Oni Jazar

Member
This is the first i've heard of the 20 Gig being slower, but even if you do upgrade the HD you'd still be ahead of the game pricewise.
 

SleazyC

Member
Bebpo said:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822136071

It seems there are no 16mb cache 2.5HDD SATA 150 drives, so if I'm gonna go 8mb cache, would this be a good one?

I checked the websites of all the local computer stores and NOONE carries 2.5" SATA, so I'll just order from Newegg.

*edit, actually this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822149057

Is a good deal cheaper and more than enough space. Would this be good?
Not sure really. I haven't bought 2.5" HDDs so I can't really say how the brands hold up. As far as the 3.5" go I have had the most success (that is less to no failures) with Seagate. Maxtor and Western Digitals have died on me in various amounts (more so Western Digital). The one thing I loved about Seagate HDDs is their 5 year warranties (carried on most of their HDDs) and how quiet they are.
 
Bebpo said:
games just as well as the 60gig PS3 and play Blu-ray films just as well too.

But it was a lie. The 20gig is as bad as the X360 core pack IMO. Why? Because the harddrive in the 20gig is SO ****ING SLOW.


hyperbole FTW, eh?
lets not get our heads up our asses.....in no freaking way is the "20gig as bad as the core pack"......while certain games may load slower than others, you still have a STANDARD HDD PRESENT for use with online content, videos, music, photos... hopefully future games will allow you to cache/install onto it like resistance/rr7/genji to shorten loadtimes.....
 

robochimp

Member
Edit:Beaten

Bebpo said:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822136071

It seems there are no 16mb cache 2.5HDD SATA 150 drives, so if I'm gonna go 8mb cache, would this be a good one?

I checked the websites of all the local computer stores and NOONE carries 2.5" SATA, so I'll just order from Newegg.

*edit, actually this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822149057

Is a good deal cheaper and more than enough space. Would this be good?

get the 16MB here

http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=DMTO1034SA&c=fr&pid=fda4e678f1124ddfc7f28a8d6e0a3ed34f4db3e0fdce27f0faf85bc37e53c867

I've ordered from them before and have not had a problem this is a pretty good price too.
 

Beatbox

alien from planet Highscore
Thanks for posting this Bebpo - I loaded up a GripShift level to test the load times and stuck around until I wiped all 3 first place runs :D
 

chespace

It's not actually trolling if you don't admit it
I thought the reason why folks bought the 20gb PS3 was so they could upgrade themselves to the 100gb HDD?
 

SleazyC

Member
speculawyer said:
hmm would that or a 7200rpm drive be better?
I think from the tests right after the PS3 came out it was concluded that higher RPM drives did little to increase performance. The bigger caches showed more performance boosts.
 

bigswords

Member
speculawyer said:
hmm would that or a 7200rpm drive be better?

I suggest sticking to a 5400 rpm drive , a 7200 maybe a tad too hot for your PS3. Yes try to buy ones with bigger cache if it is possible. But is there an option to "clear" the cache on the PS3 that might help (aka fragmented cache data on the harddrive) ?
 
chespace said:
I thought the reason why folks bought the 20gb PS3 was so they could upgrade themselves to the 100gb HDD?

Well, I bought a 20 gig because I didn't need any of the extra crap. :D I'll upgrade my 20 gig... when I need to upgrade.
 

123rl

Member
Quick question since I don't have a PS3 yet:

Can the PS3 use any SATA hard drive, or is there a limit? Would I be able to buy an 80/120 or even 160Gb drive and use it without any problems? Will this void my warranty? Any problems with overheating when using a larger HDD?
 

SleazyC

Member
123rl said:
Quick question since I don't have a PS3 yet:

Can the PS3 use any SATA hard drive, or is there a limit? Would I be able to buy an 80/120 or even 160Gb drive and use it without any problems? Will this void my warranty? Any problems with overheating when using a larger HDD?
Doesn't void your warranty. Not sure about overheating. Any SATA 2.5" should fit in there and some people have got crafty and actually got 3.5" working in there. I think a PC shop in Japan had a 750GB PS3 on display in their store.
 
speculawyer said:
The 20Gb is BETTER than the 60GB because you can use that $100 savings to pop in a 100Gb disk. All it has to be is a 2.5" SATA drive. If you want speed, get a big cache and a fast RPM.

One is not better than the other. THey both have their pluses. On the 20gb, you save money and buy whatever you want. On the 60gb, bigger HDD, wifi and card slots are included, which may be beneficial to that buyer.
 

123rl

Member
SleazyC said:
Doesn't void your warranty. Not sure about overheating. Any SATA 2.5" should fit in there and some people have got crafty and actually got 3.5" working in there. I think a PC shop in Japan had a 750GB PS3 on display in their store.

Thanks. I'm buying a PAL machine in March so I've got plenty of time to find a suitable HDD

If you do a find a site that suggests good/bad HDD upgrades for the PS3, please post it here. I'd be interested :)
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
Wollan said:
Is there a speed difference in the specs between the two HDD's? Is the 60GB 7200rpm and the 20GB not?


They are both 5400rpm to my knowledge.

However, the 20GB has a pitiful cache ... so it is gimped versus the 60GB model.
 

Bebpo

Banned
chespace said:
I thought the reason why folks bought the 20gb PS3 was so they could upgrade themselves to the 100gb HDD?

I bought it because it was $100 cheaper and I didn't need the extra stuff!
 

knitoe

Member
Onix said:
They are both 5400rpm to my knowledge.

However, the 20GB has a pitiful cache ... so it is gimped versus the 60GB model.


Most of today's HD comes in 2MB or 8MB cache. Going any lower probably won't save any cost since smaller cache size drives aren't manufacture anymore. And, difference it performance is not as huge as what people are reporting with just cache size as the issue. The more likely reason is the 20GB 4200RPM vs 60GB 5400RPM.


In every HD test I have seen, 7200RPM should outperform 5400RPM. The only issue is possible heat problems, but don't think anyone has tried to see if it's a real problem.


As for replacing the HD, it's so simple. You don't even need any guide. I replace the 60GB with Toshiba 16MB 100GB. Don't ask why. Just for fun of it. :D
 

Bebpo

Banned
knitoe said:
As for replacing the HD, it's so simple. You don't even need any guide. I replace the 60GB with Toshiba 16MB 100GB. Don't ask why. Just for fun of it. :D

Any chance you have Gripshift?

Since Gripshift seems to be the easiest way to judge hard drive speed differences, I'd be curious to see if a 16mb cache hard drive loaded stages 2x as fast as the 8mb one in the 60gig and 8x as fast as the 2mb cache in the 20gig.
 
Top Bottom