Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Console Download Speeds Tested

Posted by Soulskill on from the fun-transfer-protocol dept.

MTV's Multiplayer blog tested and compared the download speeds of games on the Wii, the Xbox 360, and the PS3. They tested a variety of scenarios, with the PS3 most often coming out on top. The Xbox 360 took first in one test, but in that situation it was using a wired connection while the other two were not. The Wii consistently came in on the slower side, taking last place in all but one test. The PS3 ranged from .44 to .79 MB/sec, the Xbox 360 from .26 to .86 MB/sec, and the Wii from .30 to .55 MB/sec. What have your experiences been with console download times?

11 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. Same game != Same server by DavidR1991 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless download speeds are tested locally somehow, how can this possibly be accurate? They're downloading the same game, sure, but being served by completely different content providers, and presumably, completely different servers

    I think the headline they're looking for is "PS3 managed to connect to faster content provider".

    1. Re:Same game != Same server by moderatorrater · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As long as that's understood from the beginning, that's a perfectly legitimate test. They're testing the difference in download speed for the entire stack, not just the console itself. Since most people are going to look at the speed of the console downloading from the company's servers anyway, this is a completely valid measure.

  2. Professional... by zombietangelo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So three different consoles, all downloading from different servers, on different networks, with different network configurations... and they're not even downloading the same data. How, exactly, does this provide ANY sort of statistical value?

    1. Re:Professional... by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Funny

      Look, if it doesn't make sense to you, you obviously haven't had enough to drink. Have three more shots, wait fifteen minutes, and read the article again.

      --
      512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
    2. Re:Professional... by philspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So three different consoles, all downloading from different servers, on different networks, with different network configurations... and they're not even downloading the same data.

      Except that it appears each of the three consoles were tested from the same network, and repeated on different networks (unless I'm on crack again.)

      The other differences are exactly what you would want to test. I don't care if the wii is actually blazing fast at downloading but nintendo's servers are extremely slow, to me that's summed up as "Dowloading is slow on the wii."

      Note that I'm not certain I have servers straight from networks, and if I am in fact getting the two mixed up, I have a "I told you I was no expert" I'll use. And the aforementioned crack problem doesn't help. But the article does seem interesting to me.

    3. Re:Professional... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Statistical? None. It does not show whether the connection speed of the Wii is in any way inferior to the one of the PS3. But how does this matter?

      If your question is "what console should I pick if I don't want to wait long to play the downloadable games for this console", it gives you sensible information. Whether the question is sensible is another thing, though.

      The first thing you learn in statistics is that it's all in how you ask, and what question you ask. Even the most braindead statistics can be made sensible when you ask the right question.

      Yes, that means searching for a problem when you have a solution at hand. If that does not make sense to you, don't waste your time in statistics and keep your honest daytime job.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Professional... by cluke · · Score: 2, Informative

      The PS3 system updates are for the f*cking DRM on Bluray that they keep changing.

      Nonsense. Regardless of whether it is slow or not, this claim is just not correct. The last PS3 update added a photo viewer application for example. Another added trophy support. Another added in-game XMB. In fact, if you look at the list of what changed in the firmware update, Blu-rays are only rarely mentioned, and that is for non-DRM matters.

      What I am getting at is - PS3 firmware updates are a GOOD thing.

  3. The sample size / method is absolutely retarded. by ragethehotey · · Score: 3, Informative

    He is comparing the download of a demo of an emulated game for all three systems, all of which are "wildly different in size", as he admits in the article.

    Mega Man 9 demo, PS3: 63 MB -Mega Man 9 demo, Xbox 360: 88.7 MB -Mega Man 9 game, Wii: 8.3 MB

    How many times did he test? Four times, on 3 different peoples connections.

    FAIL.

  4. you call that fair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    everyone knows the most unbiased test is how fast it downloads porn! what else is worth downloading?

  5. Re:The sample size / method is absolutely retarded by philspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mega Man 9 demo, PS3: 63 MB -Mega Man 9 demo, Xbox 360: 88.7 MB -Mega Man 9 game, Wii: 8.3 MB

    Of course, he does account for that. He was following their discovery chronologically rather than a more straightforward story. First they downloaded the game and timed it, got some odd results, looked further, and realized the difference in sizes.

    Such a discovery calls for some long division, which yielded the following results:

    -Mega Man 9 download speed on PS3: .44 MB per second (1st place)
    -Mega Man 9 download speed on Xbox 360: .26 MB per second (3rd place)
    -Mega Man 9 download speed on Wii: .31 MB per second (2nd place)

    It doesn't matter that the file sizes were different, that was accounted for.

    Furthermore, all three systems appear to have been tested on each connection, not a PS3 on one connection, a 360 at another house, etc.

    Lastly the blog calls for more results. The most valid criticism of the findings is not the methodology but the low numbers, and the author appears to acknowledge that and is trying to do something about that.

    But by all means, heap abuse on him for daring to try to compare consoles quantitatively.

  6. Re:Usability by wild_quinine · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know how this works on the PS3.

    You can download in the background most of the time. It downloads slightly slower than the 360, according to TFA. It seems like that to me, but I do use wireless for the PS3 and wired for the 360, so I can be no judge.

    The download speed is not the issue on PS3. Whenever you download anything you have to install it, which takes about eight times as long as on the 360 and you can't do anything else whilst that's going on. That, combined with the necessity of installing some games before playing them (which takes as long or longer than on a PC) and you've got a few pretty poor design decisions.