I wonder if only 1 GB will be enough for the OS as even the Wii U has that amount of reserved RAM for its OS.

Now, maybe Sony would be safer by giving devs 6GB RAM for now. And then give them some more, later once it is 'safe' to do so (i.e. once they were sure it wouldn't be needed).

Again... what your response and the other comment have to do with the feature to don't have to boot a game when you turn off the PS4 (always on)? A offline feature.

You turn on your console and the play start to play withou boot or anything... without read the game from the BD... just resume from you turned off the console... it is a offline Stand By feature like the Notebooks do with Windows, Linux, etc... all the game data stay in the memory to instant play after the power on.

Your replies have nothing to do with what I said... Gakai, Internet connection, etc is another subject.

I thought you were talking about the other "instant" play feature that was mentioned in my link. Now I know what you were talking of ;)

Sorry for that.

I don't know the HDD have better read access today but I think that is because the more buffer cache... not the speed itself... in any case these read speeds not seems like standard HDD... the standard HDDs 7200rpm starte the read in ~90GB/s and drop to ~50GB/s after some seconds.

This beachmakr did't show the model of the HDD... I have a 7200rpm HDD in my PS3 that have 32MB SDD buffer cache... it is alway faster than any other 7200rpm HDD but because it have SDD parts for buffer cache.

The PS3 5400 HDD can't reach 50MB/s average read speeds.

I will find more benchs.

Feel free to find other benches.

But point for point:

Yes, there is buffer cache. But the pic shows they were transferring 4000MB of data. So caches don't help here. Don't know where you get the GB/s but that's obviously also wrong. Of course your hdd you use in your PS3 is a bit faster because of ssd-cache but that's not the point. And the ps3 has a crappy interface to hdd (meaning outdated) so that's no proof for anything.

No the benchmark didn't show the model but it's 3 years old. I am curious to see how you find someting proving the opposite (so that at any time the 6xbdd of ps4 is faster than an hdd).

Bold: I already said I was wrong two time... are you reading what I wrote?

Now about the HDD a 2009 sequencial read test with standard Samsumg 7200rpm.

That the reason I'm saying your bench picture is wrong... just at the start the a 7200rpm HDD reach close to 100MB/s (not over) and after that it started to drop to get a average of 68GB/s... now a 5400rpm HDD have a even worst average read (< 50GB/s).

I think the test just uses the start of the process.

So you doubt a test from tom's hardware and favor this from 2009? It's 2013 and again Ethomaz, it is not GB/s, we are not talking about ram here. But even if you take this, this is still way better than any bd-drive. 14.5 ms access time is what an optical can't even dream of. And transfer rates are still way better than 6xbd.

lol I mean MB/s... just write GB/s because the most use... you understand.

I meam the TOM's hardware test for the 2008 model is way better than what you have in the screen I posted.

My 7200rpm HDD:

/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 14252 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7130.55 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 338 MB in 3.01 seconds = 112.32 MB/sec

This is the average speed for the first seconds... 112.32MB/s for 338MB of sequential read... if the test continue the average speed drop to 70MB/s or less... that is my point.

My laptop is a Lenovo T430... 2012 HDD model.

You had some typos, you meant MB, not GB in bolded. Anyways, it depends on the device you are using, a lot of drives used to perform horribly due to bottlenecks presented in the I/O system(PS3 is one of those since everytime I run backup and restore while fucking around with it, I want to kill myself because it's slower than hell), as controllers became more mature and raw power increased on parts, that bottleneck is now pretty much gone and that's why we need SSDs for faster speeds as the technology has surpassed HDDs in speed by far.  A 5400-7200 2.5 inch HDD usually averages at 80-125MB/s constant these days even after the buffer runs out and the 3.5 inch drives from 7200-10000RPM usually can go anywhere from 125MB-200~MB on sequential reads and writes.

If you want a fast ass HDD, look no further than this one for example:

http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_velociraptor_1tb_review

I understand... You can have any opinion on my pic, doesn't make it false. It stays where it is: HDD much faster than BDD. No chance to spin this. And lol, ethomaz: hdparm is bad for benchmarking, at least do "hdparm -tT --direct /dev/sda". And you are using a 2,5"-drive ;) But they are also way faster than bdd.