PS3 Slim uses half the power of PS3 'Fat'
(Credit:
CNET/Sarah Tew)
Sony heralded the new PlayStation 3 Slim as more energy efficient than previous models, but that's an easy feat considering the older PS3 'Fat' models were some of the most power-hungry home video appliances available, with power consumption similar to that of a 50-inch plasma TV, for example.
To test Sony's claim, we put the PS3 Slim through a battery of power consumption tests and the results really are impressive: the PS3 Slim generally uses less than half the power of the original 60GB PS3, no matter what task it's performing. Check out the comparison:
All measurements in watts.
Whether the PS3 Slim is a "green-friendly" device depends on your perspective. As you can see from the chart, the PS3 Slim still uses much more power than a typical standalone Blu-ray player like the Samsung BD-P3600, so if you're going to do mostly Blu-ray playback, the PS3 Slim is a real power hog. On the other hand, the Xbox 360 uses about 187 watts while playing a game, which makes the PS3 Slim look like the HD game console for the environmentally conscious. The Nintendo Wii uses a paltry 19 watts, but is standard-def only.
If you've got an older PS3, you might be wondering how much this extra energy consumption is going to cost you over the course of a year. Unless you're playing a lot of video games, the difference isn't that much. If you generally play for about 20 hours a week, you'll save $13.74 per year using a PS3 Slim vs. an older model. If you're hardcore enough to rack up 50 hours of gaming per week, you'd still only save about $100 over a three-year period. In other words, the PS3 Slim may make you feel better, but it won't make much of a difference in your bank account. (Our cost estimate uses the average price of energy in the U.S. during 2008, which is 11.4 cents per kilowatt per hour according to the Energy Information Administration.)
On Sale Now: $299.99
View the latest prices for Sony PlayStation 3 Slim (120GB)
On Sale Now: $259.95 - $349.99
View the latest prices for Sony PlayStation 3 (60GB)
On Sale Now: $199.95 - $299.99
View the latest prices for Samsung BD-P3600
The PS2 slim takes up hardly any shelf space (I have mine sitting on my HTPC and PS3 slim sitting just below that shelf), and if you were smart, you would have picked up a couple of Logitech wireless controllers for the PS2, it makes life much easier. And as far as "more cables" go, the component cables that I have on my PS2 are the ONLY component cables in my setup, hardly adding anything to the 3 HDMI cables I currently have running to my tv. As far as that goes too, clean up your damn cables you lazy bastards, wire ties at "The Shack" are literally dirt cheap and make stuff much more easier to manage. And for the "memory card" issue, slap 2 original Sony's in and forget about it. Were you all the same people that complained that you couldn't save your PS1 saves to a PS2 memory card? Go whine to Sony directly on their forums, not here on Cnet, Digg, Engadget, etc, we are all tired of hearing it.
If Sony can port PS1 games to the PS3, and they've already done software emulation on a version of the PS3 that I've already got, then it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to offer it again.
The launch PS3s have both the PS2 CPU (Emotion Engine) and GPU (Graphics Synthesizer) included on the motherboard . The next wave of systems removed the CPU, but kept the GPU. So BC was done using a hybrid between hardware and software. As a result the BC compatibility was slightly less. The current systems don't have either the PS2 CPU or GPU. There's always a chance they could add PS2 BC back in purely via software emulation (as PS1 BC is handled), but it is incorrect to state that they have done it before.
As to the BC issue, I own a PS2 slim and an a not-so-old PS3 [120Gb] and I suspect I'm not the only gamer in that boat. My only problem is only having 2 fib-opt inputs on my HT system, other than that, I'm happy enough [too many digital devices, not enough 'input' ports, switch boxes can only take you so far...]. .
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
When I get home, I start using it to play movies or games online. Would you guys reccommend I change from 60GB to the slim and just turn off the 60GB?
Or go on ebay and buy the original 60 GB model while you still can. People are still selling it and it's less than what it cost when it first came out $599.99. Not sure if it will last that long though. <3 Emotion Chip
http://gifts.freebiejeebies.co.uk/112866
Ding! Ding! Ding! Fanboy alert. Why are you comparing the just released Slim with the original, launch Xbox 360? Did you think people wouldn't notice that little detail? Compare it to the Jasper units which have been on sale for the last year. BTW, you forgot to mention the new Slim's Blu-ray pickup is about 10%-20% slower. Also, the newer (cheaper) ones Sony has been using tend to fail after a year (just out of warranty) and the repair cost is $150. Google YLOD or Yellow Light Of Death. Interesting that while the newer 360s have been getting more reliable and more features (and cheaper), the newer PS3 are getting more unreliable and removing features.
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
Fact the PS3 Slim uses half the power of the PS3 og model, fact it uses half the power of 360, fact less heat == better reliabilty! Fact 360 is still getting rrod and e-74, Fact Game informer did a poll on 5000 console owners and 54% have had to send their console back to MS.... Fact...Ps3 offers more features, built in wifi, blueray, blue-tooth, laptop hard drives, more movies, internet browser, free online play, half the power, and cures cancer....for the same price as the 360 that doesn't have wifi, has proprietary hard drives at 10x the cost, a rip off Toll Tax to play your games online and still made to see ads, no internet., twice the power consumption, unreliable, RROD, Don't get it twisted... its a fact .. the PS3 slim is a better deal and has more newer real Exclusives.
http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3472&p=5
- by krollins83 August 28, 2009 5:34 AM PDT
- Ok, we need to restate that sentence about playing time, and cost savings! Let's try it this way....
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (55 Comments)"If you generally play for about 5 to 10 hours a week, you'll save less then $10.00 per year using a PS3 Slim vs. an older model. If you're hardcore enough to rack up 20 hours of gaming per week, you'd still only save about $50 over a three-year period....
[Now for the new stuff]
... If you have absolutely, positively ZERO life, and spend 50 hours a week playing video games as a couch potato only to find that the hot girl you met online is actually a dude, you'd still only save about $100 over a three-year period.
Seriously people, I like video games and all, but 50 hours a week!? I don't think I've done that in any week, no less consistently.