why i prefer the phat over the slim (ps3)

R

ryu

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
2,816
Reaction score
91
Location
jhb
I have the pleasure of owning a 80g phat and when i compare (looks wise) to the slim i must say i would prefer to have the phat in my display unit rather than the slim! the slim looks very cheapish with that anti scratch cover :sick:

i'd much rather have the flashiness of the phat with its shiny cover (yes i know it's a magnet for fingerprints but it still looks better)

i had a friend bring over his slim and when it's next to mine, it looks horrible.
 
I actually prefer the anti scratch cover!

Plus it outputs the high resolution formats in bit format for an external amplifier to decode, which is pretty cool. Most importantly, it's cheaper ;)
 
Dolby said:
I actually prefer the anti scratch cover!

Plus it outputs the high resolution formats in bit format for an external amplifier to decode, which is pretty cool. Most importantly, it's cheaper ;)
Click to expand...

you got me there ! it's alot cheaper ...
 
The finger-print magnet cover of the phat is manageable; don't handle my PS3 all that often.

But I prefer the look of the slim. Contrasting glossy and matte looks great, IMO!

Only thing that sucks a bit is that the slim doesn't let you rotate the PS logo :D
 
I went into incredible yesterday to buy all the drums and mic and guitars n stuff for GH, and i had a good look at the new PS3 and was also quite dissapointed in it. It has no flash to it, its very dull, the buttons arent the cool touch buttons anymore. I was like hmm, guess i'll stick with my old one!
 
Looks aside it has got more features than the previous PS3. I agree, the old one is a much sexier beast.
 
The old one reminds me of the monolith from 2001, while the slim actually looks like a gaming console ;-)
 
I have a 250GB Slim and compared to a mates 80GB fat unit....I prefer the fat one. It looks much sleeker, whereas there are tell-tale signs that the Slim was built to save costs, e.g: No glossy finish, push-buttons instead of touch, although the push buttons make it safer to reboot if it does freeze...

Plusses for the Slim: It is considerably more discreet which compliments the whole wireless gaming experience. One hardly notices it on your wall unit/TV cabinet. I reckon it's quite and achievement to get such a multi-media powerhouse into such a tiny case, including it's PSU, and manage to keep it cool, quiet and reliable at the same time [stab-stab-stab-stab :D]

Now, if only Sony would quit making the PS2 and bring back PS2 software emulation on the PS3....
 
Last edited:
The Slim looks more stylish & it's smaller so it gets my vote. The more you look at the slim the more you like it.
 
Last edited:
I prefer the Slim because of the masses of fingerprints that used to end up on the old one.

I don't like the new push buttons though..
 
Fudzy said:
Looks aside it has got more features than the previous PS3. I agree, the old one is a much sexier beast.
Click to expand...

what features? aside from the reduced power-consumption, it differs from the phat:
* It has fewer USB ports (I think 2 vs. 4 in the phat)
* It has those "plasticky" buttons instead of touch-sensitive buttons
* You cant install a 2nd OS (if you were to use the PS3 as clustered HW)
* No backwards compatibility for PS2 games
* No ports for CF, MS or SD-cards (never used them, but still)
* The HDD seems to be louder - not sure if this is because of the reduced size?
* The slim is too skinny to stand vertically - looks like it will topple over very easily (unless you get a stand)
* Slim looks cheap as it lacks the shine and polish of the phat.

Based on the above, the slim should be considerably cheaper, but I have not seen this.
 
MagicDude4Eva said:
what features? aside from the reduced power-consumption, it differs from the phat:
* It has fewer USB ports (I think 2 vs. 4 in the phat)
* It has those "plasticky" buttons instead of touch-sensitive buttons
* You cant install a 2nd OS (if you were to use the PS3 as clustered HW)
* No backwards compatibility for PS2 games
* No ports for CF, MS or SD-cards (never used them, but still)
* The HDD seems to be louder - not sure if this is because of the reduced size?
* The slim is too skinny to stand vertically - looks like it will topple over very easily (unless you get a stand)
* Slim looks cheap as it lacks the shine and polish of the phat.

Based on the above, the slim should be considerably cheaper, but I have not seen this.
Click to expand...

The bolded were never on the PS3 80Gb that we got in this country.
 
MagicDude4Eva said:
what features? aside from the reduced power-consumption, it differs from the phat:
* It has fewer USB ports (I think 2 vs. 4 in the phat)
* It has those "plasticky" buttons instead of touch-sensitive buttons
* You cant install a 2nd OS (if you were to use the PS3 as clustered HW)
* No backwards compatibility for PS2 games
* No ports for CF, MS or SD-cards (never used them, but still)
* The HDD seems to be louder - not sure if this is because of the reduced size?
* The slim is too skinny to stand vertically - looks like it will topple over very easily (unless you get a stand)
* Slim looks cheap as it lacks the shine and polish of the phat.

Based on the above, the slim should be considerably cheaper, but I have not seen this.
Click to expand...

that's my main point ... i mean if you paying mimimum 3k for a slim shouldn't the damn thing at least look as if it's worth it ?
 
The only real advantages I can see of the slim are
1.It has a smaller cpu (45nm or whatever so makes less heat/use less power).
2.Bitsream HD audio output(whatever its called)
3.Who knows what other components inside may be more reliable(Blu ray drive)?

Now on the whole does this equate to any differences side of things well, It uses less power but does it run faster, do u get more FPS out of it? The audio thing is a bit more of sales pitch thing because in reality you can't hear the difference, and what difference is there between your amp or ps3 doing the processing on the audio?

So once you actually plug each device in, are there any new advantages ?
No, the games play the same, the blu rays play the same etc etc etc.
The old one does have substantial advantages, does linux, can play ps2 games. Even more USB ports can come into play.

So end of the day, the old PS3 is going to give you more.
 
My PS3 still doesnt have more USB ports :P and still cant play PS2 games :P and i found linux to be close to pointless on it. In my eyes with the power costs going up, if i could swap my PS3 80Gb Phat for a PS3 slim i would just for the small savings in electricity costs (even if the savings are slim :P)

Edit: oh and its cheaper + Bravia Sync (if thats what its called)
 
Monkey101 said:
The bolded were never on the PS3 80Gb that we got in this country.
Click to expand...

was comparing the slim to the original 60GB PS3. I know plenty of people replacing the phat for the slim. Not much of a reason (unless the phat caves in). the bravia-sync (or CEC) is a feature which has little benefit if your TV does not support CEC - and my understanding is, that this does not seem across all PS3 functions (i.e. playing a movie through the PS3 via the Bravia remote).

(Hoping that my PS3 runs until the PS4 comes out). The WTF-factor on the slim is, how they can only have 2 USB-ports?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X