PS3 Slim Slower and Faster Than Old, Fat PS3

now you have 2 reasons for not buying a PS3!! (no pun intended)

Curious does the slim have the PS3 logo on the XMB screen when bootup. Or is that an addition to the new firmware? I ask because the PS3 fat didn't have it and I was wondering if they had the same updates installed.

You wait 7 more seconds to watch blu-ray but it's faster on loading games. I'd take it. 7 seconds are nothing.

Faster on loading games by what, one second? I also wonder if this is a speed gain across the board or if certain games/movies will act differently. Need more info!

now if we can get hulu.com to work...

Any idea if there is any overall performance decrease in Bluray playback, or is this purely load times?

I'm thinking of getting one in the future for a gamer/bluray player.

I think my i7 wins.

I think that the speed gained by loading a game seems to be the fact that the ps3 slim doesn't show the playstation logo when starting up the game vs the old ps3. The old ps3 has about a 1.5 - 2 seconds time on the playstation logo and assuming that the old ps3 doesn't load the game when the logo is displayed, then the time gained would be null as the difference between both ps3's seems to be that exact 1.5 - 2 seconds.

I've watched 4 blu-ray movies since I got my slim, outside of the 'longer' loading times (its still faster than my old standalone player was). I haven't noticed any issues with blu-ray playback.

7 seconds is worth the reduced noise though, the slim is significantly quieter than the PS3 fat from my initial experience with it. When it comes to watching movies I'd say the decreased background noise of the player is a better trade of than initial load disc load times.

most people will be playing games many more times than watching blu-rays on the ps3 I think

Since the PS3 is suppose to be primarily a gaming machine, it would make sense that it should game better at the expense of other functionality.

Come on, everybody knows the MGS4 edition is the fastest PS3 yet.
FYI I was joking.

Eh, initial disc loading time seems rather insignificant to me. Wouldn't it make more sense to test the frame rates and in-game loading times?

I (and I'm sure others) had an idea back in the 90's to have a N64 vs. PSX commercial where the kids with a nintendo put in a catridge, turn on the system, and start playing, while the kids with a PSX put in a disk, turned on the system, and waited the entire duration of the commercial on a loading screen.

Yes, loads times have reduced dramatically since then (and computer games loading off the HDD can be worse sometimes), but one or two seconds isn't going to change anything. Neither is 7 seconds for a movie to load (unless you put the wrong movie in, and are impatiently waiting for it to eject again).

Wrong comparsion.

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

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.

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

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...??

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.

Good call CChick

Too bad it still can't play Crysis

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

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??