SSD halves GT5 loading times

By Richard Leadbetter Published 13 December, 2010

Solid state tech gets you racing faster.

Installing an SSD flash drive to your PlayStation 3 can radically cut down the loading times in Polyphony Digital's PS3 magnum opus, Gran Turismo 5.

Testing by "Phil" on the Beyond3D forum reveals that in many cases pre-race loading is cut by more than 50 per cent, making the lengthy wait between events that much more tolerable. In all test cases within GT5, there is a considerable improvement.

The experiments were performed on two PS3s - the SSD (a state-of-the-art Corsair F120) was installed into a standard "fat" PlayStation 3, while the hard drive measurements were carried out on a stock PS3 Slim. The improvements in loading performance are somewhat significant, as Phil's results reveal.

Test Corsair F120 SSD PlayStation 3 Slim HDD
GT5 Initial Loading 29 seconds 55 seconds
Loading London (Zonda R) 19.26 seconds 39.47 seconds
Loading Cape Ring (Zonda R) 20.03 seconds 40.71 seconds
Loading Nürburgring GP/F (Zonda R) 25.12 seconds 46.45 seconds
Loading Suzuka (Zonda R) 21.73 seconds 43.82 seconds
Loading Chamonix Main (Ford RS WRC) 21.25 seconds 31.09 seconds

Other testing seems to corroborate the results and suggests that an SSD cuts down the 42-minute install to 25 minutes, and hints at smoother performance in the menu system too - which would make sense since so much data is cached to the drive.

We've carried out our own SSD testing in the past (with a first-generation 128GB Samsung SSD) and found that while game install times were undoubtedly improved, the actual impact of the SSD during gameplay was limited: a few seconds saved here and there, but nothing really to write home about, and certainly nothing to warrant the excessive price of an SSD up against a traditional mechanical drive.

The case of Gran Turismo 5 is intriguing, however. The game only installs an initial 6.5GB of data to the hard drive, but this takes a suprisingly long 42 minutes on a launch 60GB PS3. As we mentioned in the GT5 installation analysis feature, the reason behind this is fairly straightforward - the game is de-archiving an inordinately large amount of tiny files and dumping them onto the hard drive (having a debug test unit allows us to peek at the drive contents fairly easily). While installing, each new file will require an update to the drive's table of contents and with each new file, the head on the hard drive will be moved. To give you some idea of the make-up of the HDD install of GT5, in one folder entitled "PDIPFS" we found in excess of 15,800 items, while in a second "PDIPFS_bdmark" folder, we found another, similarly colossal number of items.

SSDs are blazingly fast (to the point where installing an SSD into a laptop is probably the single most impressive tech upgrade you can make to one) but the headline sustained read and write speeds - often in excess of 200MB per second - aren't really relevant to either everyday computing or indeed running GT5. More important is that crucial lack of mechanical heads zooming around the surface of the disk, looking for the next file to load. Moving from file to file is virtually instantaneous. Combine that with the faster-than-HDD reading times and that's most likely the major reason why GT5's loading is so radically improved. As a bonus, the process of additional dynamic installation after the original 6.5GB install should also be considerably faster.

In a world where PS3-compatible 2.5" laptop drives are dropping in price like a stone, the notion of spending around £200 for a 120GB SSD remains pretty ridiculous, but the tests do highlight how important seek times are, and if you're thinking of upgrading your PS3 hard disk, this is well worth factoring into a potential purchasing decision.

The experiments also show that flash memory - also dropping in price all the time - may have an important part to play in the make-up of a potential next-generation console, perhaps working in concert with a traditional mechanical drive.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (52) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Bravestinsane #1 1 year ago

    eerm.... sorry but only people who have a stupid amount of disposable will willing get a SSD which will double the price of the PS3 console, it will cost about £250 in it's self for a half decent SSD that has a decent size and not some shitty 60gb one.

  • spazmo #2 1 year ago

    It was only a test mate. Calm down.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #3 1 year ago

    also Amazon are selling the drive for £172.99, no still not cheap and nothing i would get anytime soon, but your £250 rant is a bit uncalled for.

    Quite an interesting article and something to keep in mind for the future if the prices keep dropping.
    Edited by GamesProgrammer at 13/12/10 @ 11:47

  • Dizzy #4 1 year ago

    Water is wet.

    Seriously....

    I have an SSD in my PC and it is incredibly fast... but putting this in a console? Maybe next gen.

  • Mcstrife #5 1 year ago

    Nice, I was just wondering about this yesterday when waiting for a track to load.

    PC gets it first though.

  • arcam #6 1 year ago

    Here's one area where the Wii has better tech than either of the HD consoles - it's been using solid state storage since the beginning.

    Just a shame it only has 512MB of it ... :p

  • Miths #7 1 year ago

    The price tag for cutting down those load times is too high for taste, but I'm pretty sure I'll be putting an SSD drive in my next PC for the OS and major applications.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #8 1 year ago

    Quite an improvement. On that note - and I'm not saying this to bad mouth the PS3 in any way - it's a bit worrying how high the loading times are. 40 seconds to load a track is really a long time. Anyone know how long Forza 3 takes because that takes quite a while as well.

  • atarianer #9 1 year ago

    I put a Crucial RealSSD 128GB SSD in my PS3 on day one and so far i'm really pleased with the performance.
    I know that the PS3 will never maxout the sata 6gb interface, but 20 Minutes GT5 installation speak for themself :)

  • Eldritch #10 1 year ago

    Native support of USB sticks would be nice though, and it looks like 16 GB would be enough to install GT5.

    (I have no idea about a USB stick's performance vs an SSD's, please please bear with me)

  • Der_tolle_Emil #11 1 year ago

    Technically USB sticks are flash based memory like SSDs, however the memory controller is much more important. USB sticks are horrible when it comes to pretty much any performance test. Even if they were fast enough then the USB would be a bottleneck.

  • StolenGlory #12 1 year ago

    Or, they could have just spent some of that five year development cycle sorting out the fucking dreadfully inexcusable load times in the first place.

  • Eldritch #13 1 year ago

    EG compared storage option for the 360 the other day, and USB sticks didn't perform all THAT bad:

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-360-storage-update-the-flash-factor-article
    ]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-3...[/link]

  • Mkwone #14 1 year ago

    I'm quite slow on tech, but normally i can get a decent way into the article before being made to feel stupid. I didn't even finish the title this time.

  • barat #15 1 year ago

    When I was a child I imagined loading times would be non-existent by 2010...

    Hopefully SSD's will be cheap enough to be standard in the next generation.

  • GamesConnoisseur #16 1 year ago

    Seem that the test proves the most sensible option for storage space with the next gen consoles are for SSD to be intergral from the launch and the current prices are the biggest issue for this consideration.

    So until SSD becomes more widespread and thus cheaper, I m hoping that next gen WONT get going until way after the watershed moment.

    So 2012 onwards.

    Other thing about SSD is its much so lighter.

  • arcam #17 1 year ago

    An SSD only helps loading times, it doesn't really help you squeeze better performance from games, and for that reason I don't think it's priority for console manufacturers. The extra price means I doubt we'll see it included in next-gen consoles.

    What I hope is manufacturers follow the example of Sony and let you install standard storage drives - that way the consumer can decide personally if the faster loading is worth the increased cost.

  • Caimbeul #18 1 year ago

    @Bravestinsane - 60Bg is not a small HDD for the PS3 and £250 for a decent SSD is way off the mark. you can get them for about £100 now.

    Its a bit bloody obvious though that an SSD will wipe the floor with a standard SATA drive though...
    Edited by Caimbeul at 13/12/10 @ 15:07

  • mkreku #19 1 year ago

    I actually have one of those Corsair F120 in my PC.. it is great.

  • Darren #20 1 year ago

    I've had a Crucial SSD in my PC for a year now and it has proved to be terrific for speeding up the responsiveness of Windows 7 and loading times of applications but I don't use it for games; there's really no need when most load quickly anyway from a hard drive (as in under 15 seconds). They're not the slow 5,400 rpm laptop drives that the consoles use.

    While this is an interesting experiment, I certainly would not buy an SSD for a console as it would be a waste of money for the few games that benefit from it; money which would be better spent on the games themselves IMO.

  • Darren #21 1 year ago

    P.S. And GT5 is certainly not worth buying an SSD for either; I doubt faster loading times will make me less disappointed with the game itself! :p

  • Eldritch #22 1 year ago

    Then you won't be buying 1999 of those?

  • Gartt #23 1 year ago

    Are people really still bashing each others consoles? Thats so 90s...

  • Farzlepot #24 1 year ago

    Sounds like somebody's jealous that they can't afford Sony's console as well!

    Or alternatively, sounds like somebody's an idiot.

  • Kestana #25 1 year ago

    @Der_tolle_Emil

    From experience, it's just about as long with GT5 loading times slightly worse. But only slightly. Give or take 5 seconds. GT5's already installed on the PS3 hard drive so it's quite bad compared to

    Anyway, I've done tests just now. Forza 3 IS NOT installed on my hard drive. But the second disc for the additional content is installed on the hard drive. I'm using an Xbox 360 S BTW.

    Loaded these maps with my car as the Audi R8 FSI 5.2 Quattro. These are the figures:

    Camino Viejo de Monserrat - Full Circuit ~ 43 seconds
    Amalfi Coast - Full Circuit ~ 37 seconds
    New York - Full Circuit ~ 38 seconds
    Circuit De La Sarthe - Full Circuit ~ 36 seconds

    Loading times vary per map. I'll record the loading time for GT5 HDD installed and Forza 3 HDD installed another time. Or I might edit this post instead.

  • FutureDave #26 1 year ago

    I can just about tolerate track loading times, but the menu navigation is inexcusable. If fairly complex database driven websites can be navigated in a flash, then why does GT5 require a loading screen to go from one section to another? Ridiculous.

  • Chufty #27 1 year ago

    Shock, horror, an SSD is faster than a mechanical hard drive? That's the whole point of SSDs. Not really news.

    SSD prices are getting cheaper quickly, but the trouble is they vary so wildly in performance. You need to get a top notch model with either an Intel or a SandForce controller to see much difference in a PC, never mind a console.

  • Pikol #28 1 year ago

    I hope SSD will cut in half the time needed for my windows to boot.

  • king26 #29 1 year ago

    Hopefully they will patch it so issues like this are addressed

  • Der_tolle_Emil #30 1 year ago

    @Kestana: Thanks a lot. I always played Forza 3 from the HDD but the loading times were still quite long - not sure though if I ever breached the 30 seconds mark. It usually took about 2 to 3 of those trivia facts until everything was ready. That was on the 'regular' 360, however I used my own 250gb hard drive, not sure how much faster they are in comparison to the official ones; Pretty sure it was one of those Western Digital Blue Caviars that I used.

  • kosigan #31 1 year ago

    How about a Momentus XT from Seagate? Better performance than a standard HDD as it has 4GB of flash memory on it, without the hideous expense of a decent-sized SSD (£95 for 500GB from misco.co.uk). I'm thinking of getting one. Has anyone else got any experiences about them to share?

  • AusFreelancer #32 1 year ago

    The Momentus XT is great for the PS3 (its a hybrid SSD/mechanical drive) - its almost as fast as an SSD once it learns the games usage patterns. Installed it in my slim, and it just feels snappier. it's also about waaaay cheaper than a SSD, with way more storage. Maybe Richard can do some of his own benchies on this?

    Exhibit A: whrl.pl/Rcy4pM

    (scroll through the thread for more benchmarks)
    Edited by AusFreelancer at 14/12/10 @ 11:51

  • Alkeno #33 1 year ago

    The facts about SSD are well known... boring!!!

    The interesting fact about this article is that the morons at Polyphony Digital, knowing as they knew the real life limitations of BD drives and HDD, still chose to fill the disk with thousands of tiny files. For god's sake, any first year student in computer science knows that I/O operations with lot's of many small files will kill the performance of just about every conceivable program no matter what you do.

    That's what happen when someone gets obsessed with something (cars looking look) to the point that all other considerations are left behind ("interface? loading? netcode? crashing sounds? Don't bother! The boss wants moar vertices on every bumper!!!";). At least they managed to actually get the cars to look awesome.

    Edit: Spelling.
    Edited by Alkeno at 13/12/10 @ 23:56

  • GR33NTORCH #34 1 year ago

    u guys should warn buyers that ssd degrade over time as u erase and write new files

  • GR33NTORCH #35 1 year ago

    on the computer u could use trim to fix it but the ps3 doesn't support it the older ssd had programs that would also fix the problem but those are few

  • GR33NTORCH #36 1 year ago

    BUT THAT LEAVES ME THINKING IF U GOT A NEW SSD HARDRIVE WOULDN'T JUST FORTMATING THE HARDRIVE FIX THE PROBLEM?

  • BIGJOEJGDE #37 1 year ago

    Or go to the PS3 hidden recovery menu and restore the file system?

  • djed #38 1 year ago

    If you want to play without loading times, play old games on a modern computer.

    Also, I can sort of see where Bravestinsane is coming from with his post, if you are looking to upgrade your PS3 hdd in the first place, it's probably because you want more space...

  • obscured021 #39 1 year ago

    I had a spare 60G SSD left over from an upgrade, so i poped it into my ps3 at the start of the summer and it is well worth the upgrade, only down side is the size.

    (cant spell)
    Edited by obscured021 at 14/12/10 @ 12:21

  • joe90 #40 1 year ago

    Its back to the spectrum loading days.. full circle..

  • Der_tolle_Emil #41 1 year ago

    @MilkybKid1985: I don't have a PS3 so I cannot comment on the installing process but if it is anything like the 360 you cannot do anything else when the files get copied. That means it's pretty much all in one place on the hard drive for the most part, unless you deleted tons of smaller chunks over the last couple of months and the PS3 insists on filling those holes when installing a game (which would be stupid because they know that game images should not be fragmented if possible; but as the drive's capacity comes to an end there really is no way around it)

    SSDs shine when it comes to I/O operations. Head movement does take its toll on access times but even if you can keep that to a minimum just accessing a file generates processing overhead. Reading 100 1mb files even if they are all close to each other on the hard drive takes quite a bit longer than reading a single 100mb file. The huge improvements in loading time when using a SSD points to poor file management, ie. using a lot more smaller files than less but bigger files. Even with bigger files the SSD would probably be faster but definitely not by as much as it is the case here. Of course, I cannot comment on the file structure at all - I don't know what is on the disc and I certainly don't know what Polyphony's code looks like. However, speaking out of experience I think it is quite safe to say that there certainly is potential to minimize loading times, otherwise the difference would not be that significant.
    Edited by Der_tolle_Emil at 14/12/10 @ 16:23

  • Bboy_Izilla #42 1 year ago

    Its good to know, but I gotta say I'm not willing to buy a new HD for a games flaws. Guess I'm not frustrated enough.

  • Chufty #43 1 year ago

    I wouldn't put an SSD in my PS3 anyway. TRIM is almost certainly not supported, and you can bet that the PS3 will do all sorts of "optimising" such as defragging and sector allocation that will destroy the performance of an SSD. GR33NTORCH: Even formatting doesn't fix it, you'd have to TRIM the drive in a PC regularly.

    The Momentus XT, however, is a different story. The onboard controller deals with the flash memory so you shouldn't get these issues, and it's far faster than a fully mechanical drive.

    Again though, not all hybrid drives are equal so you have to be careful what you're buying. I'd love to see a benchmark of the XT in a PS3 though.

  • makeamazing #44 1 year ago

    My PC would be first for an SSD to be honest, like most people. PS3, probably not.... but the prices are falling quite fast, so it might happen by the end of 2011/2012

  • StooMonster #45 1 year ago

    I've replaced almost all my hard drives with SSD and cannot recommend them enough, they're still twice as fast as the 10,000 RPM VelociRaptor drives they have replaced and they were fast). Cheap new lease of life for a laptop too. Love 'em.

    If I had a PS3 I would put one inside it in a heartbeat, there's few things more boring than waiting for games to load; it's a shame Microsoft went down the route they did with hard drives.

  • StooMonster #46 1 year ago

    TRIM's not a requirement, Apple are the largest purchasers of SS memory on the planet and Mac OSX doesn't use TRIM command and the SSD work just fine in their computers, and have no reduced life (at least according to the stuff I've read).

  • IneptPercy #47 1 year ago

    TRIM isn't so much about life but performance, without it the drive slows down over time until it is formatted.

  • darth_paul #48 1 year ago

    @Chufty
    i think defragging is a windows problem, me thinks. not sure. mac partitions dont have that problem. also think linux dont need to defrag

  • kosigan #49 1 year ago

    @Chufty: "Again though, not all hybrid drives are equal so you have to be careful what you're buying. I'd love to see a benchmark of the XT in a PS3 though."

    Well, I've got one on order, so I'll see if I can get something together. I don't have GT5 though, so it'll have to be on something else.

  • Oskool #50 1 year ago

    I think Battlefield Bad Company 2 plays smoother off USB flash memory on 360. Seems like there's slightly less frame rate stutter and improved controller response l. I refer to my Xbox hard drive as "the slug".

    GTA IV is another game that plays 2x better off flash memory. Ever try playing it off the hard drive? The road textures will go low-res while driving fast enough down a long stretch. Don't get that with the flash memory. Mass Effect 2 plays sweet too. No texture pop-in, at all...

  • cjs #51 1 year ago

    It is indeed the case that the (spiritual and otherwise) descendents of the Berkeley Fast File System (now known as UFS, or the Unix File System) generally don't need defragging. In the particular case of GT5, it wouldn't help that much anyway even on a VFAT (DOS) type filesystem, since the issue is not the files' blocks being adjacent, but that the head needs to move constantly to go back to the metadata (directory) information for the file.

    My understanding is that the PS3 filesystem, underneath the encryption, is more or less along the lines of Linux ext2fs, and thus an FFS-type filesystem.

    That said, it's a mystery why the GT5 developers would chose to use lots and lots of small files, rather than several large files and some sort of simple "database" layer to put their various objects within them. It's well known that that would be a huge performance debuff, not to mention evident in practice for this game.

    This seems to be the case with a lot of PS3 software, though. An affordable SSD would be too small for my needs (I currently have about 150 GB of stuff on my PS3 drive, and that's only going to grow), but I'm certainly going to look into a Momentus XT or similar hybrid drive when I next upgrade.
    Edited by cjs at 29/12/10 @ 19:56

  • kosigan #52 1 year ago

    I've borrowed a friend's copy of GT5. It just took 29:52 to install the 6,431MB of installation data. This is using the version on the disc, no patches. Track loading times to follow.

    OK, track loading times - using the Zonda R '09 each time.
    London: 0:31
    Nürburgring: 0:29

    Time taken for the game to determine the size of installed files: 0:12.

    Better than I thought they would be, actually. Cost £100 for the 500GB one.
    Edited by kosigan at 30/12/10 @ 11:52