Hey there.

So... you use an ad blocker. That's cool. Sometimes we do too.


But without ad revenue, we wouldn't even be here. And we might not be here much longer.

Please disable your ad blocker and click to continue.

Page 2 of 4 First 123 ... Last
  1. #11
    dibdo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by riezo View Post
    The faster loading times would just make sense, I mean the cell that powers the PS3 Slim is more powerful then the cell found in the PS3 Phat.
    It depends on the drive and architecture of the system, a slight faster CPU wouldnt make a such a difference. And Slim has a more powerful CPU than ´phat´? That just sounds stupid, why would they do it.

  2. #12
    Chivafighter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by dibdo View Post
    It depends on the drive and architecture of the system, a slight faster CPU wouldnt make a such a difference. And Slim has a more powerful CPU than ´phat´? That just sounds stupid, why would they do it.
    Exactly, the cell is the Same as the Regular PS3 just smaller. no increase of power.

  3. #13
    kingtidus390 Guest
    I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't see myself getting the slim PS3. I like the Digital Media center on my 80GB Motorstorm PS3 too much. It makes it so much easier to transfer photos, videos, music, and updates to the PS3.

    The faster loading times are very nice, but I agree with broy4686 faster install times would be an even bigger plus rather than loading time. Even still, the Slim PS3 not having the Digital Media Center (although there are fat PS3s without the DMC) is a big turn off for me. My grandma's PS3 (my grandma is hardcore like that) doesn't have the DMC that my PS3 has and it's a pain in the ass using the USBs to transfer stuff to from say a Digital camera or micro sd card.

    Also I noticed that the Slim PS3 has two fewer usb ports than mine has. My PS3 has 4 usb ports! Making it much easier to charge four controllers than say a ps3 with only 2 usbs.

    Although... the slimline is supposed to weigh a LOT less than the original, and that might change my mind, but still fewer usbs, no DMC, and the hard drive being in front kinda still bug me. As for the textured non fingerprint showing surface, I can just buy a PS3 skin and not have to deal with that (most skins only being around $14.99 very cheap).

  4. #14
    lonix81 Guest
    Wouldn't be surprised if they actually stuffed a bit more RAM in there.. they did something similar with the psp so don't be suprised if it comes out that there is 512mb of ram in the slim.

  5. #15
    KingM07 Guest
    I think the faster loading times are very nice, but they are no reason for buying a ps3 slim if you already got a ps3 phat.
    If Sony wants people to buy a ps3 slim they got to make something, what makes really a huge difference between the two PS3s.

  6. #16
    nukester Guest
    i traded in my ps3 phat for the ps3 slim and have no complaints so far..

  7. #17
    tworok Guest
    i hate when companies release inferior products, hopefully they won't stop producing the phat, giving consumers an option between size & quality.

  8. #18
    colonfrank91 Guest
    Good news, but makes no big difference actually. Well to me at least, the phat is good for me so the slim won't be all that great for me.

  9. #19
    renx Guest
    it's looking good.

  10. #20
    azaxsyn Guest
    I really doubt this test, because the phat is better build and previews tests showed that's the phat is faster...so i don't really think sony enhanced the slim with fw3.0...

    Quote Originally Posted by riezo View Post
    The faster loading times would just make sense, I mean the cell that powers the PS3 Slim is more powerful then the cell found in the PS3 Phat.
    that was never confirmed

Page 2 of 4 First 123 ... Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in