Storage Devices

Both the PlayStation 3 and the Xbox 360 feature removable 2.5” HDDs as an option for storage; the difference being that the PS3 won’t ship with a hard drive, while the Xbox 360 will. 

In the original Xbox, developers used the hard drive to cache game data in order to decrease load times and improve responsiveness of games.  Compared to the built in 5X CAV DVD drive in the Xbox, the hard drive offered much faster performance.  With the Xbox 360, the performance demands on the hard drive are lessened, the console now ships with a 12X CAV DVD-DL drive.  You can expect read performance to more than double over the first DVD drive that shipped with the original Xbox, which obviously decreases the need for a hard drive in the system (but definitely doesn’t eliminate it).

This time around, Microsoft has outfitted the 360 with a 20GB removable 2.5” HDD, but its role is slightly different.  While developers will still be able to use the drive to cache data if necessary, its role in the system will be more of a storage device for downloaded content.  Microsoft is very serious about their Xbox Live push with this next console generation, and they fully expect users to download demos, game content updates and much more to their removable hard drive.  The fact that it’s removable means that users can carry it around with them to friends’ houses to play their content on other 360s. 

It is important to note that disc capacity remains unchanged from the original Xbox, the 360 will still only have a maximum capacity of 9GB per disc.  Given that the current Xbox titles generally use less than half of this capacity, there’s still some room for growth.

Microsoft has also reduced the size of the data that is required to be on each disc by a few hundred megabytes, combine that with the fact that larger game data can be compressed further thanks to more powerful hardware and game developers shouldn’t run into capacity limitations on Xbox 360 discs anytime soon. 

The PS3 is a bit more forward looking in its storage devices, unfortunately as of now it will not ship with a hard drive.  The optical drive of choice in the PS3 will be a Blu-ray player, which originally looked quite promising but now is not as big of a feature as it once was. 

The two main competitors for the DVD video successor are the HD-DVD and Blu-ray standards.  Around the announcement of the PS3 at E3, there was a lot of discussion going on surrounding an attempt to unify the HD-DVD and Blu-ray standards, which would obviously make the PS3 Blu-ray support a huge selling feature.  It would mean that next year you would be able to buy a console, generally estimated to be priced around the $400 mark, that could double as a HD-DVD/Blu-ray player.  Given that standalone HD-DVD/Blu-ray players are expected to be priced no less than $500, it would definitely increase the adoption rate of the PS3.  However, talks between unifying the two standards appear to have broken down without any hope for resolution meaning that there will be two competing standards for the next-generation DVD format.  As such, until unified HD-DVD/Blu-ray players are produced, the PS3 won’t have as big of an advantage in this regard as once thought.  It may, however, tilt the balance in favor of Blu-ray as the appropriate next-generation disc standard if enough units are sold. 

When we first disassembled the original Xbox, we noticed that it basically featured a PC DVD drive.  From what we can tell, the Xbox 360 will also use a fairly standard dual layer DVD drive.  As such, it would not be totally unfeasible for Microsoft to, later on, outfit the Xbox 360 with a HD-DVD or Blu-ray drive, once a true standard is agreed upon. 

The one advantage that Sony does have is that developers can use BD-ROM (Blu-ray) discs for their games, while if MS introduces Blu-ray or HD-DVD support later on it will be strictly as a video player (game developers won’t offer content for only owners of Blu-ray/HD-DVD Xbox 360 versions).  The advantage is quite tangible in that PS3 developers will be able to store a minimum of 23.3GB of data on a single disc, which could mean that they could use uncompressed video and game content, freeing up the CPU to handle other tasks instead of dealing with decompression on the fly.  Of course, Blu-ray media will cost more than standard DVD discs, but over the life of the PS3 that cost will go down as production increases. 

Will Sony Deliver on 1080p? System Costs
Comments Locked

93 Comments

View All Comments

  • Darkon - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    #49

    WTF are you talking ?

    The Cell does general-purpose processing although not as good as 360 cpu.


    And Anand I suggest you do some more research on cell
  • Alx - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    Someone explain to me how Sony will support 1080p please. If developers make the games run at acceptable framerate at that resolution, most people running them at 720p and 480i will be wasting at least half of PS3's rendering power.

    On the other hand if XBOX360 game devs make their games run just fast enough at 720p, that'll give them far more resources to work with than those poor Sony game devs.
  • Shinei - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    That's not necessarily true, #48. The Cell processor doesn't do general-purpose processing, so it can't do decoding on its own--and as far as I know, even pressed DVDs have to be decoded by some kind of processor. (Of course, I know next to nothing about video equipment, so I could be wrong...)
  • arturnow - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    Another difference between RSX and G70 is hardware video decoder - PureVideo, i'm sure RSX doesn't need that which saves transistors count
  • freebst - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    Actually, in response to 31 there is no 1080p 60 frame/sec signal. the only HD signals are 1080 30p, 24p, 60i, 720 60p, 30p, 24p.
  • BenSkywalker - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    Why the support for lower resolutions? I'm a bit confused by this- I can't see why anyone who isn't a fanatic loyalist wouldn't want to see the highest resolution possible supported by the consoles. The XBox(current) supports 1080i and despite the extreme rarity in which it is used- it IS used. Supporting 1080p x2 may seem like overkill, but think of the possibilities in terms of turn based RPGs or strategy games(particularly turn based) where 60FPS is very far removed from required.

    The most disappointing thing about the new generation of consoles is MS flipping its customers off in terms of backwards compatability. Even Nintendo came around this gen and MS comes up with some half done emulation that works on some of 'the best selling' games. Also, with their dropping production of the original XB already it appears they still have an enormous amount to learn about the console market(check out sales of the original PS after the launch of the PS2 for an example).
  • Warder45 - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    errr #31 not 37
  • Warder45 - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    #37 is right on the money. There is a good chance that there will be no HDTV that can accept a 1080p signal by the time the PS3 comes out.

    It seems less like Sony future proofing the PS3 and more like Sony saying we have bigger balls then MS. Not to say MS is exempt from doing the same.
  • IamTHEsnake - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    Excellent article Anand and crew.

    Thank you for the very informative read.
  • masher - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    > "Collision detection is a big part of what is commonly
    > referred to as “game physics.” ..."

    Sorry, collision detection is computational geometry, not physics.

    > "However it is possible to structure collision detection for
    > execution on the SPEs, but it would require a different
    > approach to the collision detection algorithms... "

    Again, untrue. You walk the tree on the PPE, whereas you do the actual intersection tests on the SPs. The SPs are also ideally suited to calculating the positions of each object (read: real physics) and updating the tree accordingly.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now