PS3 Phat vs Slim speed comparisons

[mcwildcard]

I can't actually watch these at work, but it looks like the Slim is indeed faster if the comments are anything to go by.
Can someone kindly let me know exactly how much faster the Slim is please?

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/digitalfoundry-ps3-slim-vs-ps3-fat-devil-may-cry-4-installation

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/digitalfoundry-ps3-slim-vs-ps3-fat-assassins-creed-installation

 

[Dingleberry88]

DMC4:

PS3 Slim - 18mins 41secs
PS3 - 21mins 23secs


AC:

PS3 Slim - 3mins 11secs
PS3 - 3mins 18secs



Not much in it.

 

[AGD]

The video is sped up so you can't tell exactly but the difference in speed is negligible and I wouldn't get excited about it.

 

[mcwildcard]

Probably just the new drives being more efficient then, which isn't exactly a shock.

 

[Inazuma]

DMC4:

PS3 Slim - 18mins 41secs
PS3 - 21mins 23secs

Hallelujah I can make one more cup of tea before playing!

 

[mmj_uk]

Likely just the newer/bigger HD, probably irrelevant for those who fitted a bigger HD.

 

[wannabedamned]

You're aware the Cell in the Slim is more efficient than the Phats? That could also be a reason for this, Aswell as the HD too.

 

[mmj_uk]

More efficient how? I thought it was just on a smaller process to reduce power/heat.

 

[Teaf]

Was to be expected with newer technology.

More efficient how? I thought it was just on a smaller process to reduce power/heat.

Well... I'd pretty much class that as more effecient

 

[mmj_uk]

Was to be expected with newer technology.


Well... I'd pretty much class that as more effecient

Shouldn't affect performance though.

 

[wannabedamned]

Shouldn't affect performance though.

Theres more than that to it, Its the reason it can now handle bitstreaming HD audio. Atleast thats what the site i read told me I could be wrong

 

[Kreeeee]

Theres more than that to it, Its the reason it can now handle bitstreaming HD audio. Atleast thats what the site i read told me I could be wrong

I thought bandwidth was the only issue for bitstreaming... doing nothing to the audio is the least processor intensive method

 

[wannabedamned]

I thought bandwidth was the only issue for bitstreaming... doing nothing to the audio is the least processor intensive method

That...is true.

Meh, I found my quoted site

In addition to IBM's claim of "performance improvements" IDG News Service reports that the Slim "adds hardware enhancements that make it speedier" though, curiously, Sony never mentioned any performance improvements coming with the Slim. Since gaming consoles are engineered to a specification – so developers aren't programming for a moving target – we're thoroughly skeptical of of any user-facing performance improvements. Lucky for us, we've got a Slim at our disposal, so we'll throw some fire at it and see how it responds.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

I thought bandwidth was the only issue for bitstreaming... doing nothing to the audio is the least processor intensive method

The HDMI chips used in the launch consoles didn't support Bitstreaming.

Basically.

 

[ubern00b]

Its the reason it can now handle bitstreaming HD audio.

Bitstreaming would actually take LESS CPU than converting to LPCM. The reason it can now handle bitstreaming is that it has an updated HDMI chip in it.

 

[ubern00b]

I thought bandwidth was the only issue for bitstreaming... doing nothing to the audio is the least processor intensive method

Bandwidth but more so CEC (Consumer Eletronics Control aka DRM) and having protected paths between source and target.

 

[98p]

Hmm its a little bit faster, i quite like the look of the ps3 slim.