[sionyboy]

If I remember correctly, isn't Cell at 65nm not that much smaller than Cell at 90nm? I know someone posted the die sizes on here and there wasn't a massive difference between the two. Maybe Sony haven't upgraded their fabs because the cost involved wouldn't be offset by the

Perhaps Sony are working on their own revision of Cell at 65nm to make some further savings.

[Carl B]

Originally Posted by sionyboy

If I remember correctly, isn't Cell at 65nm not that much smaller than Cell at 90nm? I know someone posted the die sizes on here and there wasn't a massive difference between the two. Maybe Sony haven't upgraded their fabs because the cost involved wouldn't be offset by the

Perhaps Sony are working on their own revision of Cell at 65nm to make some further savings.

The 65nm die comparison you're thinking of was of the IBM HPC revision vs the original chip. Earlier this year Sony's CFO claimed that their own shrink of the chip was a 40% reduction, so I would imagine that be more what we're looking for. There may have been a further revision of the 90nm version at some point... or maybe not. But either way Sony likely still has some 90nm inventory one way or the other to work through still.

[sionyboy]

Originally Posted by Carl B

The 65nm die comparison you're thinking of was of the IBM HPC revision vs the original chip. Earlier this year Sony's CFO claimed that their own shrink of the chip was a 40% reduction, so I would imagine that be more what we're looking for. There may have been a further revision of the 90nm version at some point... or maybe not. But either way Sony likely still has some 90nm inventory one way or the other to work through still.

Perhaps it was that I read then, I think it was something like 235mm2 -> 212mm2, or something like that.

Still, to get that sort of power consumption reduction without a die shrink is pretty impressive work. Although as shifty_geezer pointed out, are Sony making any sort of savings with the 40gb SKU given the lack of a die shrink?

[Carl B]

Originally Posted by sionyboy

Perhaps it was that I read then, I think it was something like 235mm2 -> 212mm2, or something like that.

Still, to get that sort of power consumption reduction without a die shrink is pretty impressive work. Although as shifty_geezer pointed out, are Sony making any sort of savings with the 40gb SKU given the lack of a die shrink?

Well, they're saving money of course vs the older units... but not as much in theory as if they had successfully migrated to 65nm.

[dskneo]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Late news, dskneo!

Also lack of 65nm has serious ramifications. Without those cost savings, are Sony making a larger loss on 40 GB? And why is 65nm proving so slow to appear?

I dont care much about financial stuff

This news to me is great news. The 40gb is very very quiet and it turns out, still at 90nm. I didn't expect a 50watt fall based on cell redesign alone.

This puts my expectations for 65nm a bit higher. Perhaps a slim edition sooner than expecter (if they can shrink that bluray and psu a bit more)

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Carl B

Well, they're saving money of course vs the older units... but not as much in theory as if they had successfully migrated to 65nm.

A serious question is how much? If they were losing $200 at $600, and now save $100 on costs, they'd be losing $100 @ $600 but $300 @ $400 RRP. Their losses could be higher now than before, and volume sales with high losses are going to be hard to recover from those units over their lifetime. Our expectations were that a price drop for Sony would come about when they could 'afford it' by cost reducing to non-suicidal losses at a 'mainstream' price. I guess this could be an optical 80nm shrink too - Sony were successful with those on PS2. Or they're clearing out old 90nm stock, and better to sell it than have it sitting around.

[Arwin]

I just read the heisen.de article, and wow, the unexpected happened, C't seem to have been in error! But it's understandable, 60W reduction from changing other parts is pretty impressive, not to mention the 0.3-0.5 Sone sound reduction (now it seems to be as quiet as a Wii)! Sony says in the article that the production facility will be switched from 90 to 65nm in the coming months, so that should mean a further reduction in power consumption and even sound is still coming for the near future.

When that model hits the stores, I"ll probably get a second PS3, put that one in the living room and let it run BluRay and DVDs and the rest of the media stuff, living room games and Folding, and move the 60GB version to my study and install Linux.

(If, that is, I still have a life when the baby comes end of April, which seems unlikely. )

[patsu]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

A serious question is how much? If they were losing $200 at $600, and now save $100 on costs, they'd be losing $100 @ $600 but $300 @ $400 RRP. Their losses could be higher now than before, and volume sales with high losses are going to be hard to recover from those units over their lifetime. Our expectations were that a price drop for Sony would come about when they could 'afford it' by cost reducing to non-suicidal losses at a 'mainstream' price. I guess this could be an optical 80nm shrink too - Sony were successful with those on PS2. Or they're clearing out old 90nm stock, and better to sell it than have it sitting around.

I thought Kaz mentioned that Sony loses a little less (per unit) for the new boxes.

[deepbrown]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

A serious question is how much? If they were losing $200 at $600, and now save $100 on costs, they'd be losing $100 @ $600 but $300 @ $400 RRP. Their losses could be higher now than before, and volume sales with high losses are going to be hard to recover from those units over their lifetime. Our expectations were that a price drop for Sony would come about when they could 'afford it' by cost reducing to non-suicidal losses at a 'mainstream' price. I guess this could be an optical 80nm shrink too - Sony were successful with those on PS2. Or they're clearing out old 90nm stock, and better to sell it than have it sitting around.

$200 loss at $600 was not for that long I don't believe, they'd already made lots of grounds for reduction, and this new model will be reduced even more. I'm sure they were nearing profitability in Europe.

[Shifty Geezer]

I also suppose from an optimistic POV, if they've got the price down without 65nm, when that kicks in a further significant price-reduction could be introduced depending on sales.

[Dr Evil]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

I also suppose from an optimistic POV, if they've got the price down without 65nm.

Or maybe they just said "Fuck it we are doing five blades."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930



I think it's possible that they decided to take a further hit to their bottom line ín order to secure more sold units this holiday season and with the 65nm coming soon, the losses wouldn't be that great... I still find it little bit hard to believe that they managed ~200W -> ~135W without smaller chips...

[tinfoil]Maybe they are just saying that the 40GB is also 90nm, because they are worried about selling their large stock of old 60GB and 80GB units[/tinfoil]

[Mize]

Doubt the tinfoil - $100 more for PS2 and double the HD space is a pretty good deal IMHO. Granted the lower power consumption and silence would be nice, but ditching PS2 emulation would have scared me away as I was trying to get rid of a console in the process for space/clutter reasons.

[Laa-Yosh]

Considering the magnitude of Sony's losses, it is indeed possible that they've decided to take a bigger hit at the moment to build up the user base. In this case the change to 65nm won't cause another price cut, but it will help their financials considerably.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Dr Evil

Or maybe they just said "Fuck it we are doing five blades."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930

When you think of how the forum's have reacted to Sony's comments in the past, I wonder how the internet's Male Grooming forums have reacted to this?! The Wilkinson Sword fanboys must be furious that the CEO of their rival can talk this way! And of course all the Gillette buyers should feel outrage that their valued brand can regard them with such contempt, as little more than shoppers who'll blindly buy their products with a bit of advertising.

I don't think Sony are in such a...'serious marketing position' as that. Given the huge losses they stand to make on hardware, I doubt decisions can be made as lightly as Gillette wanting a new profitable-from-the-off product. A $200 price drop is going to have to come from a good consideration of costs and losses, rather than a 'sock it to the enemy' gung ho attitude.

Also the 60/80 GB models are suitably differentiated from the 40 GB to have their own added value, either in specs (BC) or price+bundle. The only people who'd care to check for 65nm are internet monitoring nerds, and principally for the cooler, quieter running. As the 40GB delivers on that, it doesn't much matter what's in there. Indeed, if people are wanting 65nm, telling them they have to wait is only going to delay sales.

[Blackraven]

So it's lower power consumption in exchange for removal PS2 BC compatibility (and SACD support). I guess I can't sell my PS2 yet

Nevertheless, will consumers be warned that their 40GB PS3 units don't have PS2 and SACD support???

-----------------------------------------------------

In any case, one thing bothers me. It appears that 65nm would be pushed further in the production lines (mostly at TMSC) so that 80GB units (since Sony plans to end 60GB PS3 production soon) released for next year would use be using 65nm parts.

But still, would they remove PS2 and SACD support on the upcoming 65nm 80GB units as well (for next year)??? Or is this "crippling" just for 40GB units???

I'm asking this because I'm thinking of the best time to get my PS3. In my case, I'm gunning for lower power consumption, heat and noise which is why I support 65nm shrink but I don't want my unit to be crippled as well (ie. lack of PS2 support and SACD playback support, etc.).

Anyone care to help me out?

[Versatil]

Originally Posted by Blackraven

In any case, one thing bothers me. It appears that 65nm would be pushed further in the production lines (mostly at TMSC) so that 80GB units (since Sony plans to end 60GB PS3 production soon) released for next year would use be using 65nm parts.

But still, would they remove PS2 and SACD support on the upcoming 65nm 80GB units as well (for next year)??? Or is this "crippling" just for 40GB units???

I'm asking this because I'm thinking of the best time to get my PS3. In my case, I'm gunning for lower power consumption, heat and noise which is why I support 65nm shrink but I don't want my unit to be crippled as well (ie. lack of PS2 support and SACD playback support, etc.).

Anyone care to help me out?

I'm waiting it too.
I already bought a 80GB in case of. I'm counting on my seller's guarantee to return my PS3 in its box if that new 80GB will feature SACD and BC chip).

[codelogic]

Originally Posted by Versatil

I'm waiting it too.
I already bought a 80GB in case of. I'm counting on my seller's guarantee to return my PS3 in its box if that new 80GB will feature SACD and BC chip).

The current 80GB model plays SACDs. Moreover they at least have s/w BC something that the 40GB model doesn't have.

[Versatil]

Originally Posted by codelogic

The current 80GB model plays SACDs. Moreover they at least have s/w BC something that the 40GB model doesn't have.

The actual 80GB doesn't have 65nm.

[Blackraven]

Originally Posted by Versatil

The actual 80GB doesn't have 65nm.

And that's the thing I'm concerned about.

20 GB/60 GB units will be ending their production within the year and thus only the 40GB and 80GB units will be churned out of the factory.

Thing is, I want 65nm parts (the power consumption drop is too huge to ignore) yet I don't want it to be 'crippled' as well (ie. lack of PS2 and SACD support in the 40GB model).

I think the question here is if they would apply this same 'crippling' for the 80GB units produced next year. That's what I'm asking about.

[Shifty Geezer]

The current 40 GB model doesn't use 65nm apparently. There'll be a bigger power drop when it comes out. Your choice is pretty much BC (+SACD?) at big and hot, or small and cool but without BC (and SACD). If you have SACDs, its probably worth getting an older model. SACD is so unpopular I can't see much reason to add the expense back into PS3 for something 99% of owners will probably never use.

[ADEX]

Originally Posted by dskneo

it appears we are all wrong

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/03/s...ng-90nm-chips/

sony states its a new cell design still in 90nm

The 90nm Cell with 8 SPEs is rated at 110 Watts. With 7 I'd expect a bit of a drop but no more than 10W.

Are Sony seriously saying the power consumption of *everything* other than the Cell is 40W max?

[nico1982]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

There'll be a bigger power drop when it comes out.

I don't know how much reliable the information is, but an user on hwupgrade.it reported different wattages, even lower than AVS's one - read comment #21 for details:
- 95W while in idle
- 104W BD playback
- 118W while playing games (Resistance)

65 nm already out? Maybe Sony depleted the stock of 90 nm Cell and/or RSX with the first batches of 40GB?

[nidave]

I am going to ask what may seem a very stupid question. I have been reading the form for a while and have learnt loads. I don’t have very much technical knowledge of hardware.
Here goes...
Looking at the pictures posted at the start of this thread the tracks between the various chips are quite a distance apart, will this have any impact of the performance of transferring data between them?

[Blackraven]

It'd be interesting to see if future 80GB units running on 65nm would stay within sub-100watt teritorry (again without removing/crippling any existing features).

If they can do that, then I'm getting a PS3.

[mech]

Originally Posted by nidave

I am going to ask what may seem a very stupid question. I have been reading the form for a while and have learnt loads. I don’t have very much technical knowledge of hardware.
Here goes...
Looking at the pictures posted at the start of this thread the tracks between the various chips are quite a distance apart, will this have any impact of the performance of transferring data between them?

They could feasibly, but obviously Sony will design the trace lengths to within certain tolerances.

I haven't done PCB trace layouts in a long time, and I'm glad for it