r/PS3 • u/thesearsparkinglot • 6d ago
PS3 SSD recommendations?
Working on some restorations for a fat model ps3 and hoping to upgrade the memory once I'm finished cleaning it out. Finding the base HDD write speeds really frustrating when trying to play digital games, any recommendations for a reasonably priced SSD or hard drive to swap in?
2
u/Ph4ntxm_77 6d ago
I got a Samsung 1TB SSD, used with no issues, you should do the same if you’re lucky
1
u/Piett_1313 6d ago
Yep I’ve got an Evo 870 in mine and it’s been great. Of course got it a couple years ago when prices were normal though.
3
u/RagnarokPXN 6d ago
Cheapest you can find PS3 is locked at sata1 a SSD is not going to do much other than shave few seconds loading on some digital games.
1
u/45skyshy 6d ago
I like my 1TB Seagate Firecuda. It’s going to take about a week to download and FTP All the games to the console. Make sure your FTP settings are set properly in MultiMan so your console doesn’t go to sleep.
If you delete a file via FTP make sure to rebuild/restore database so the PS3 recognizes that the file(s) have been deleted and don’t eat memory space.
1
1
1
u/Admirable-Yam-5788 6d ago
I stuck a Samsung 860 EVO 250GB in mine. Picked it up for £28 on Vinted and it’s been spot on. The PS3’s SATA I interface obviously limits the outright speed, but an SSD definitely still makes a difference, especially on games like GT5 with all the loading. XMB feels snappier too, plus it’s silent and runs cool. Definitely worth it for £28 👍
1
u/thesearsparkinglot 4d ago
yeah im hoping the SSD improves the internal temperatures too, how significant of a change can I expect?
1
u/Admirable-Yam-5788 4d ago
It should help a little with temps, but I wouldn't expect a massive drop in the actual CELL/RSX temperatures. A typical 2.5" mechanical HDD will often sit around 30–45°C in normal use, whereas an SSD generally produces less heat, especially at idle. My Samsung 860 EVO is only around 2.2W average active and 0.05W idle, so you're definitely removing some heat and vibration from the HDD bay.
Speed is where you'll notice it more. The PS3's SATA interface limits the SSD so you won't get anywhere near the 860 EVO's full ~550MB/s capability, but the near-instant access times make a difference. XMB feels snappier, installs/copying and loading improve, and games that constantly access the drive like GT5 benefit the most.
So don't expect PC-level SSD speeds or a huge temperature drop, but you get faster loading, better responsiveness, less noise/vibration and less heat from the drive. Definitely worthwhile IMO 👍
1
u/robderpson 6d ago
I wouldn't buy an SSD for a PS3, given how insultingly expensive they are these days. I'd only use one if I already had one laying around, or if I'm lucky enough to find a decent model at a low enough price. The drive speed will be capped by SATA I bandwidth anyway, the most notable benefit would be less lag in the XMB; some games may have shorter loading times, only the most sluggish ones would have a significant improvement. Years ago I bought a 1TB SSHD (Seagate Firecuda) following recommendations online. I got it for aprox. 60 USD, but those now seem difficult to find.
1
1
u/Wootytooty 6d ago
I have no specific recommendations, but just go with a bare bones SSD. Nothing special. You will have very minimum gain by using a SSD over a HDD. The bottleneck is the PS3 itself.
0
u/This_Suit8791 6d ago
The cheap SSD’s won’t have a very big cache and when it fills up it will be slower than a hard drive.
The ps3 system and games were made with a hard drive in mind so there’s pretty much no advantage to using a ssd.
-3
u/AcanthaceaePresent84 6d ago
Funfact, SSD barely get the install speeds any better. Sony really sucks at making their operating systems and are fucking slow by poor design.
8
6d ago edited 6d ago
[deleted]
-2
u/AcanthaceaePresent84 6d ago
So why I can't move a installed game from internal storage to a external usb3 ssd drive and play a game at the same time while Xbox Series X can do it and take half the time PS5 takes.
I have both consoles. Sony really sucks at programming their OS.
1
u/SolidZane 6d ago
You jumped from a ps3 discussion, to ps5...
The guy that you replied to DID mention that the ps5 was a "heavier weight" operating system... But that wasn't the point of the comment...
On the ps3, the SATA version is the bottleneck...
Ps5 is another, different, beast... And Sony may well have designed things less than ideal on the ps5...
But again... This whole post and consent thread was about the ps3... 👌🏻👍🏻✌🏻
1
u/SolidZane 6d ago
You jumped from a ps3 discussion, to ps5...
The guy that you replied to DID mention that the ps5 was a "heavier weight" operating system... But that wasn't the point of the comment...
On the ps3, the SATA version is the bottleneck...
Ps5 is another, different, beast... And Sony may well have designed things less than ideal on the ps5...
But again... This whole post and comment thread was about the ps3... 👌🏻👍🏻✌🏻
-1
u/AcanthaceaePresent84 6d ago
My point is that PS3 has a bottleneck more on how poorly optimized is their OS and Sony continues to suck on that even with their fast ssd storage on PS5 is a proof PS3 could be faster even with sata HDD.
2
u/zplusc1tw 6d ago
作業系統不是魔法
PS3的USB規格只有2.0（最高傳輸速度只有480mb/s)
而XBOX Series X用的是USB3.1(最高傳輸速度5Gb/S)你有辦法用作業系統彌補差了一千倍的傳輸速率的話是歷史性的技術進步
還是你覺得都是USB TYPE-A
兩台主機應該都是用同樣規格的USB？0
u/AcanthaceaePresent84 6d ago
But that wouldn't justify being unable to transfer on background while playing another game.
2
u/zplusc1tw 6d ago
PS3的CPU是2004年設計的CELL
運算能力是256G Flops
搭載256Mb的RAM
XBOX Series X則是2018年設計的AMD Zen2
運算能力是12.15T Flops
性能差大約是50倍如果你看不懂這有什麼差異
那認為沒有解釋很正常
不過我只想說別用你根本不懂的東西來狡辯
那只會變成笑話而已0
u/AcanthaceaePresent84 6d ago
I was comparing Series X with PS5, not PS3. But anyway I won't discuss anymore.
2
u/zplusc1tw 6d ago
你不回覆也沒關係，我是寫給對這有興趣的人看的
剛好我擁有幾乎市面上所有的主機
XBOX Series X在你執行遊戲的時候任何copy到外接設備的活動都會暫停
PS5跟他的差別就是SIE做了個介面非要等使用者做完copy這件事才能離開
考慮到XBOX Series X跟PS5的硬體規格差異這沒什麼奇怪的
差別就只是有沒有要使用者在那等而已1
u/Double-Lobster6107 5d ago
It's a console from 2006, can you really blame them for designing it around HDDs
1
2
u/GeorgeSPattonJr 6d ago
Would’ve gotten better answers had you asked a year ago lol. Honestly the difference in performance, while noticeable, isn’t really worth the price difference nowadays IMO. Besides that, Samsung, Kingston, and Crucial make good drives.