PS3 slim vs. PS3 fat

[wufners]

Apologies if I'm treading already covered ground here.

I'm going to be buying a PS3 soon, but I find myself struggling whether to buy the slim model or track down the older, fatter one.

When it comes to hardware, I usually prefer to buy new, but so help . . . I kind of prefer the looks of the original model. And as dorky as it sounds, I prefer an optical drive that sucks a disk in, to one that has a flip lid.

To fuel the fire, as I was debating these cosmetic issues, a Target employee recommended I track down and older model because they were more reliable and the Slims overheat. Now this is where I really become uncertain what to do.

I will use it for gaming, but it will see most of it's use as a movie player. And since that means my wife and kids will be using it, I want the version that's the most stable and reliable.

I know most of the feature differences between the two. I don't care about backwards compatibility or card readers. I've read that the Slim loads movies slower, but I'm willing to put up with that since it uses less power (I've got too much stuff plugged in as is, so the less power needed = yay!) I've also read that they may have a lesser quality blu-ray drive. If that just means it slower, then I can deal with it. But if it means the drive is going to die on me sooner, than that sucks. Especially if the thing is prone to overheating too. Which my very brief research has neither confirmed nor denied.

Which is all my long way of asking, does anyone have any strong feelings one way or the other? I'm leaning Slim, but would appreciate any expertise or first hand experience anybody has to share.

Thanks!

[eskobar]

I have had a few PS3 models and i am very happy with my PS3 SLIM. Power consumption is important to me and there is a big difference in the original PS3 60GB and this model.

Both consoles are a bit ULGY to me, the FAT PS2 was really good looking but all the PS3 models feel a bit clunky.

Besides BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY and the support to install LINUX on the FAT PS3s, the SLIM with 250GB HD is a great choice for only $349.99

[megasdkirby]

I have an 80GB fat, and to be honest, I love it. At times I worry that it may overheat, but nothing so far.

I want a slim, though. I want to conserve my original model and use the slim the most. Hoping for a price drop.

[kupomogli]

If the slim had backwards compatibility I'd get rid of my 60gb and pick one up. If you can't get a backwards compatible 60gb then I'd throw the money down on the slim instead.

Now if you're a fan of the PSP and adhoc party is something you're interested in, then I would highly recommend not to get the PS3 20gb. It's got full backwards compatibility, however it has no ability to get wireless, meaning that it's impossible for adhoc party. Adhoc party allows you to connect hard wired with the PS3 and wireless from PSP to PS3 and then play your PSP games through the PS3 with other users across the world. As long as you're playing around five states away or less then you'll get no lag or very little lag.

[CDiablo]

Ive yet to see the Slim (so I cant give a aesthetic opinion)but ask your self whats more important, power consumption/reliability or PS2 backwards compatibility.I love having BC on my 60 gig and being able to play PS2 games with a great wireless controler. If you want a middleground you may want an 80 BC fat or the MGS PS3, which I believe are the last versions to have BC. They use less power than the launch 60/20 but are compatible with less PS2 games than the 60/20.

Keep in mind with the fat models, some will get the YLOD. Withe the slim, the manufacturing errors are yet to be seen.

[heybtbm]

When it comes to hardware, I usually prefer to buy new, but so help . . . I kind of prefer the looks of the original model. And as dorky as it sounds, I prefer an optical drive that sucks a disk in, to one that has a flip lid.

The fat and slim both have drives that "suck" the disc in. Not sure where you got the idea that one had a flip lid.

I have one of each. A 60 gig fatty downstairs in the game room and a 120 gig slim upstairs in the home theater. I've never noticed a difference in blu-ray load times...and I've watched quite a few on both machines. It sounds like one of those things that you would only notice by timing it and comparing the times side by side (shrugs).

If b/c isn't a big deal, just get a 250 gig slim and be done with it. Other than the hard drive size and case design, there really isn't anything else that different about them (fatties have more USB jacks and custom OS option). If your compiling anecdotal evidence...I will say that the slim runs pretty hot compared to the fatty. YMMV.

[phreakindee]

Here's my experience:

Went through two launch-model 60GB fats, one died of natural causes (yellow light) and the second due to serious overheating, melted a little. Also didn't seem too stable, but I know a lot of patches have come out since then. It was great for having PS2 compatibilty though. Still, I know people who have had their launch PS3 still going strong.

I now have a 120GB Slim. I have had zero issues with it so far. It seems quieter and also cooler, more stable, but does not have PS2 compatibility which sucks but whatever. I have a PS2 for that. Plays PS1 games like a dream though!

[wufners]

Thanks everyone!

I'm feeling pretty good about the slim now.

I don't know where I got the idea that the slim has a flip lid either. I think the PS2 slim must have told me. :P

Backwards compatibility doesn't mean much to me. I still have my PS2 and am content to dig it out whenever I miss it.

Price isn't a huge issue, but certainly a factor. I'm going to cut the difference and go with the $299 120 gig model. I doubt I'll ever fill up even a quarter of that.

My biggest concern is if it works as good as the original. The Target guy had me a little nervous since I never heard of any issues before. But he was also big on the backwards compatibility and I'm not hearing much else about the overheating being much of a concern. So yay slim!

[Poofta!]

the original release 60gb PS3 is the best model out. it has hardware ps2 compatibility and all the extra support and features pulled out later.

if you can, get that one. if its between what you can find at the store, go for the slim, it doesnt warm the room up as much

[j_factor]

Blu-ray related: The slim has the ability to bitstream lossless audio (like TrueHD). Although, you'll only notice if you're an audiophile with a high-end audio system.

[BHvrd]

I agree that if I could get a slim with ps2 backwards comp. then I would ditch the fat.

It just gets too damn hot compared to the slim. I would also lose the "other os" install option and a couple of usb ports and memory card slots, but I wouldn't miss them really.

If you are after PS3 games only get a slim if you also "desire" the PS2 compatibility "which is understandable" then if you get a fat I suggest taking the lid off and keeping it dusted out often. I have the lid off mine and have a fan that blows directly on the power supply as that thing just gets ungodly hot at times. It has actually scorched the metal plate and has permanent heat marks from how hot the damn thing gets.

[j_factor]

I agree that if I could get a slim with ps2 backwards comp. then I would ditch the fat.

It just gets too damn hot compared to the slim. I would also lose the "other os" install option and a couple of usb ports and memory card slots, but I wouldn't miss them really.

You can actually use USB hubs and USB memory card readers to "bring back" the lost features. The only thing you can't bring back is PS2 compatibility and the "other OS" option (although I'd bet the latter will be hackable in the future).

From what I can tell, all versions of the PS3 run pretty hot. Some people say the slim is actually hotter. I don't know. I wonder if those third-party PS3 cooling fans are worth it.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Don't those external attachment fans actually damage your system?

[j_factor]

I've heard that about 360 fans, but I've never heard anything regarding PS3 fans.