I just don't see what the benefit of SSD in a console would be. The only benefit an SSD offers you is faster reads and (generally) faster writes. For example, on the PC, the SSD will improve the initial game load time and maybe in-game load times, because it's pulling data from the hard drive at fast speeds, but that is literally the only function it speeds up. Once your application and its data has been loaded into memory, the SSD is just sitting there, contributing little.
Which means that for it to benefit a console, you would have to install games to it. Even if you devised a system that only installed the most frequently accessed parts of a game to the hard drive, it wouldn't take many games before you started consuming all of your SSD's limited storage space (especially when you consider how many tens of gigabytes a game can potentially be, on Bluray). A decent SSD for consumers runs around just under a buck a gigabyte, right now. That's $256, $128, or $64, for accordingly sized drives. Even at wholesale manufacturing prices, they probably aren't cheap enough to build into consoles at any usable size.
If the prices on SSDs drop very significantly over the next decade, I could see later iterations of the consoles moving to SSD storage, but at the moment -- compared to the nickel or less per gigabyte of SATA drives -- I don't see it being even remotly realistic. And, yes, like @Grimluck343 mentioned, the recording function would quickly consume that (drive performance degrades fast when you hit or exceed 80% space utilization and recording high quality 1080p at 30fps easily uses gigabytes per minute. Even with fast encoding on-the-fly by the onboard chip they mentioned being dedicated for the recording/streaming, it would be too large for an SSD.
Log in to comment