WereKitten said:
scottie said:
sega4life said:
By Luke Plunkett (Edit, to draft, Slurp)
Copy this whole post to another site
Sure, it's not as sexy a bullet-point as "new design" or "lower price", but the fact the PS3 Slim was reported as running on 34% less power than the previous model was still appreciated. Thing is, that figure is wrong.
Crave decided not to take Sony's press releases at their word, and instead plugged a Slim into machines to test its actual power output. And their findings are a little surprising!
The Slim uses a lot less power than Sony have given it credit for. In standby mode, it's around 70% more efficient, while playing games and Blu-Rays its just over 50% more efficient.
That's not to say its an efficient machine per se (it still uses 4x as much juice playing a Blu-Ray as a standalone Blu-Ray player), but hey, in relative terms, the Slim is now a lot more efficient than it's fatter, older, more wasteful brother.
PS3 Slim uses half the power of PS3 'Fat' [Crave, via Gizmodo]
|
MATHS TIME!!!
Being 50% more efficienct and using 33.333333...% less power are mathematically identical.
Because efficiency is equal to your output (in this case it's the same for both consoles) divided by your energy used. 1/(100-33.3333) = 1.5
However it's good to know that the power saving is more than 33.4% for standby though.
|
Err, you're right in your definition, but that's not the what they are reading from their measure.
Did you look at the numbers in the Crave link (or just its name)? They measured power consumption, and got that the slim uses less than half the power of a 60GB model. Correctly, in the original article they never said it's "50% more efficient", as it would rather be "double as efficient" or if you want "a 100% increase in effciency".
The point is - obviously - that they are measuring the slim against the original 60GB fat, which was in turn much more power-hungry than the revised fat models that followed, which explains the discrepancy with Sony's official statements.
So it's not that this Luke Plunkett did not realize that the numbers were equivalent, he was simply wrong when using consumption numbers and talking of effciency.
|
