PS3 Slim Slower and Faster Than Old, Fat PS3

[CChick]

Wrong comparsion.

Fat PS3 still on 2.8x, and PS3 Slim is on Firmware 3.0

 

[Guest]

On the Arkham Asylum video, I didn't see the Playstation 3 logo before the game started on the slim. That's the only thing that makes it two seconds faster. Maybe its the fault of a different firmware, like CChick said, but that doesn't make it two seconds faster.

 

[hakesterman]

Afew seconds here and a few seconds there, no Biggie. it consumes half the electricity what more do you want????

 

[homerhellboy223]

[citation][nom]claudeb[/nom]i dont see any pun...[/citation]

2 reasons could be a reference to the ps2 since the only number in the sentence is "3" in the name ps3.

 

[abhik]

[citation][nom]homerhellboy223[/nom]2 reasons could be a reference to the ps2 since the only number in the sentence is "3" in the name ps3.[/citation]

The references, made were that of 2 cases where it was slower. the "pun" was that there are now 2 ps3 models (hence 2 reasons to not get a ps3; the ps3 itself). he didnt use the work pun correctly, but its still not that hard to work out guys...

 

[dreamphantom_1977]

load times..?... Who really cares about a few second load times when you are gonna be using it for an hour or more each time? They should check to see if it actually plays the games faster, less stuttering, smoother...??

 

[omnimodis78]

[citation][nom]MGDJoker[/nom]I think my i7 wins.[/citation]
wow an i7! That is so cool! I am so jealous. Dude why make a comment that is totally irrelevant to this story? Granted I don't own a ps3, or any console for that matter, but this constant show off routine that PC users throw out there to console users is getting a little stale. Enjoy what you have but stop with the superior attitude.

 

[nottheking]

I wonder what's different between the two versions that'd yield the different load times? If the firmware was different, then it was a pretty poor 'test;' proper scientific testing requires holding ALL variables except the one being tested in a state of being constant. Otherwise the reason behind the results could be almost anything, including a unique result of two factors being together, that doesn't show at all with just one of the two factors.

Hearing just these results without anything more solid given (such as the internal hardware specifications, perhaps?) means that the results don't matter much. And as also mentioned, load times don't matter so much, either. So it remains to be seen if the difference means anything, like it was in the change from the PSP to the PSP Slim and Lite, (where they doubled the total RAM from 32 to 64MB, which allowed tons more pre-loading and less waiting for the UMD to read) or if it'll mean nothing.

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]2 reasons for PS3 vs the 5-10 reasons not to get a 360[/citation]
Er, I thought there were just three reasons not to get the 360... And each was a red light in the shape of an arc. 😛

 

[belardo]

Good call CChick

 

[Caffeinecarl]

Too bad it still can't play Crysis

 

[Guest]

am i the only one that can see that in the game load test the ps3 fat took a second to display Playstation 3? that would mean the game didn't start loading until after that. with that in mind, i say they load games at the same speed or at least close enough that you couldn't tell from a video comparison test.
-my two cents

 

[Guest]

I just don't have a ps3 and i am getting one soon i just don't know what to get the older model or the new model. i rely want one all i have is a frikin Wii it,i don't realy like the Wii, so what i am asking is what to get the new or older??

 

[Guest]

"i rely want one all i have is a frikin Wii"

Laughing Out Loud!!!...very funny...at least it is in my own sort of way that I find things comedic that most others don't.....

hahaha, ya dude I feel bad for ya if you ONLY have a WII, that would suck.

 

[Guest]

dang 7 seconds slower, i mite get the fat after reading that, i dno't mind waitin for the game to load, as i suspect it is less than 7 seconds quicker, and the fat looks better

 

[Guest]

i only have a wii and it sucks! worst decision of my life buying it.

 

[Guest]

the wii is for gamers that want to have fun

the x box was for gamers that couldent afourd a ps 3

the ps3 is for movie watching non gamers that need to wast money on some thing that thay dont need

i have a wii and a x box i will probibly buy a ps3 latter but i dont see teh point in the ps3

 

[Guest]

LOL they made the Slim seem faster with games by cutng out the little "Playstation 3" logo that apears when u start a game. The Phat is the clear winner.

Sony just did wot they have done since the PS1 n released a smaller and cheaper to make version n sell it at a higher price than the original 1 was when the slim came out for pure profit... god damn sony, when will u learn we're not dumb.

 

[Guest]

I think folks are forgetting I important point here. I still have my original fat PS3, first version, upgraded to 500GB HDD, and I avoid the newer slims, mainly because I have an enormous collection os PSOne, PS2, AND PS3 discs, and my PS3 can play them ALL. The new slims will ONLY play PS3 discs, and not the others. Also there are a ton of ports, memory readers, and other cool features gone from the slim. What I WILL say is that if none of that matters and you only need to play PS3 discs, then it really makes no difference in the end, they are both good systems. Just my opinion.

 

[Guest]

ok first off my ps3 (older version) has the capability to play ps2 and ps1 games without any additional software or limits, all i need is the disk, my ps3 has 2 more usb ports than a new ps3 slim, and has 3 memory card slots for extra capacity, it has a slightly better blue ray lense and the reason for the faster game play is just that, the ps3 old version has a better quality blue ray lense where the slim doesnt meaning it would need less power to run a game but would in a matter of slight difference take longer to run anything in a game that requires alot of the ability of the blue ray, you play a game and like a pc dependent on the graphical applications of the game , the pc will run it as slow or fast as it can, with a better lense i can run higher end games with larger graphical application maxed out (1080p, blue ray and so on) where smaller games because i max out the capability of the blue ray and the graphics applied the game speed would be sacrificed , when i play on pc if i turn up the resolution and crank the graphics and video card as much as i can the game would run slower or faster depending on that. and its not a long wait anyways, that kinda thing is irrelevant when compared to the bonuses i receive for the older version as compared, the only thing that is better about the slim is its storage capacity related to gigs, well 200 gigs is good compared to an 80 gig but they said the hard drive was the same speed and the processor (presumably) would be the same speed, so i would rather have more ports and all my ps 1 and 2 games worth while still, i have 3 memory card slots so i can always buy a memory card for storage and who really needs 200 gigs, i mean yeah you do but i already (like most of you) have a pc, my ps3 doesnt need storage it needs flexibility , with 3 different types of memory cards and 2 more ubs ports that are probably flash drive 2 or higher i can interchange information between my ps3 and pc faster and more efficiently. at least this is the biggest thing i noticed, and while the ps3 slim is quieter nobody seems to realize that the internal heating components on the older versions were louder because they had a bigger job to do...an older version ps3 potentially has to read hardware from 7 different ports, the older version runs 1080 p alittle faster explaining the speed differential with blue ray application and the internal hardware, finally i have noticed the i receive a better signal from my wireless internet ont he older version as compared to the newer version, i think sony cut costs on wireless capability and hardware and quality of blue ray lense for more storage and a bit of a cheaper price, lets not forget the older version playstation was recalled because sony was losing alot of money making something that cost more to manufacture than what you charge for it, i paid 600 for my older version ps3 when just a blue ray alone anywhere was 500 and up and sony blue ray lenses are rated as of date the number one blue ray device anywhere in the world......i think in comparison the newer slims might be smaller and lighter and look all nice, but i have touch sensitive panels and more hardware at a higher quality....i think the choice is obvious....the recalled the old versions for a reason....and trust me i have one, its not cause it sucks or has a problem......

 

[Guest]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Hardware down at the bottom is a list of the difference of the different models of the ps3