PS3 Slim Hardware Confirmed

I put my 500Gb HD from my fat into my slim just now and it refused to boot saying that I needed the 3.0 update on an external device to format the HD. That's new, it's always just formatted the drive before. Perhaps it's because it was set up up with Yellowdog on it?
 
The DRM or security subsystem has changed ?

I look in there fairly often anyway and others do too, but not as much as in the beginning ... ;)

Whenever I have it's always empty. It's kind of a sobering experience!

You guys are in different timezone from me. I usually sign into the room after I boot up. The people I see most is Lagspike_exe.

EDIT: The Jabber chatroom I used to run has a persistent message log. It's possible to see what others talked about before you enter the room. That gave people more reason to visit the room in the early days until it built up a critical mass (it's like a forum). Unfortunately, it also means that Sony needs to keep a server around to store the logs. Probably not going to happen since PSN is free, and many people left nonsensical messages.
 
I put my 500Gb HD from my fat into my slim just now and it refused to boot saying that I needed the 3.0 update on an external device to format the HD. That's new, it's always just formatted the drive before. Perhaps it's because it was set up up with Yellowdog on it?

Out of curiosity, have you updated slim to 3.0 before the HDD swap?
 
Great, it transferred my themes and images but nothing else. Now I have to download all PSN games and all patches all over again. I've also lost a few savegames ... notably my Demon's Souls save. I feel empty inside.
 
Out of curiosity, have you updated slim to 3.0 before the HDD swap?

Both the slim and the fat were running 3.0. I had to download the update onto a stick and it went through the whole format re-install thing then with no problem. It's probably just because it had linux on it and 3.0, and the slim, don't support that.
 
I put my 500Gb HD from my fat into my slim just now and it refused to boot saying that I needed the 3.0 update on an external device to format the HD. That's new, it's always just formatted the drive before. Perhaps it's because it was set up up with Yellowdog on it?
My understanding is that from a particular fat PS3 revision (the model number of which I don't know) the internal flash was reconfigured from 256MB (that would hold all of the firmware) to 16MB - which holds the core OS, with the rest of the firmware being loaded from HDD.

Looks like the rest of the firmware is needed to get the system in a state where it can run the formatting process. Hence the request for an external device with the .PUP file on it (in order for the slim to operate fully).

Cheers,
Dean
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, that site is accurate for real ? Isn't edepot a member here ? Thanks for tracking these changes.

Because of the slower and smaller flash chips in later versions, newer firmware versions allow for the firmware data to be partially stored on the harddrive (instead of totally inside the firmware), making the flash purely responsible for holding data involved in the critical booting up process. This allows for cheaper flash chips, while using the harddrive for faster speed in the later bootup stages. Below is a layout of the directories inside the earlier flash versions:

data
ps1emu
ps2emu
sys
external
internal
vsh

Obviously, PS1 and PS2 emulation code on PS3 would reside in ps1emu and ps2emu. Most of the executable files have extension .sprx and are encrypted, (most likely decrypted using the SPE of the CELL). There are four main flash partitions: flash0, flash1, flash2, and flash3. Most of the data is in flash0 and flash1.

I didn't know the HDD can be faster than the slower Flash chip. May be it's the RAM performance (after HDD loading)
 
Wow, that site is accurate for real ? Isn't edepot a member here ? Thanks for tracking these changes.

Some of edepot's earlier compilations contained some errors - I think his original membership here was actually for the purpose of adding/revising his compilation back in the days when we were discussing IC die shrinks 90nm to 65nm and RSX clockspeeds (I think the ROP clockspeed should be added in btw).

It is useful to have out there though, he's turned it into a great chronological progression/technical compendium.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, that site is accurate for real ?
I'm definately not saying that everything on edepot is accurate, or even in the same reality as us. But for the bit that I refer to, it seems ok.

I didn't know the HDD can be faster than the slower Flash chip. May be it's the RAM performance (after HDD loading)
Well, I'm not sure about the HDD being faster than flash - it depends on the IC used amongst other things. But in terms or reducing the component cost (in a market where every dollar counts), it seems like a pretty good move to me.

Cheers,
Dean
 
Is there really that much difference between 16MB and 256MB these days? I'd have thought 16MB wasn't even being made!
 
Sure, but who makes small flash RAM, and isn't 256 MBs Flash pretty tiny already? That is, even if the 256 MB is 4x the size of 16MBs, if it's a matter of 4mm^2 versus 1mm^2, is that really going to be a substantial cost saving? In fact it'd have made more sense at the beginning of the gen when 256 MBs Flash was a much larger amount than nowadays with multi-gigabyte Flash storage. Now that flash is a main-main-mainstream commodity, kinda like HDDs, I'd have thought you'd want a widely available size.
 
Sure, but who makes small flash RAM, and isn't 256 MBs Flash pretty tiny already? That is, even if the 256 MB is 4x the size of 16MBs, if it's a matter of 4mm^2 versus 1mm^2, is that really going to be a substantial cost saving? In fact it'd have made more sense at the beginning of the gen when 256 MBs Flash was a much larger amount than nowadays with multi-gigabyte Flash storage. Now that flash is a main-main-mainstream commodity, kinda like HDDs, I'd have thought you'd want a widely available size.

But it might still be widely available. I mean, routers these days often ship with even less, like 4MB for firmware.
 
http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/game-industry/uk-ps3-outsells-wii-and-ds-3-1-too-$1325257.htm


Even though there was a 20% drop last week in PS3 sales and a 26% increase in the 360 they still sold approximately the same units. So even before the price cuts PS3 seems to have fairly healthy sales advantage (46% more the week before)



Where are you getting all this?

IF PS3 sales rose 1100% per the article, and 360 sales were 29% lower the week prior, then PS3 was outsold about 3-1 by 360 the week prior to the 1100% increase. And using the figures in the link, 360 sold about 1.6X PS3 two weeks ago (which probably would have been a "normal" week afaik).

Using absolute figures with two week ago Xbox=1, 3 week ago Xbox ~.7, two week ago Xbox ~1, and last week xbox=1.29. Thus we get the 43 and 29% Xbox raises in the article. For PS3, 3 week ago~.44, two week ago=.35 (20% decrease), and last week=3.87 (1100% increase, 3X Xbox last week).
 
Meaningless spikes. There are always spikes. there's nothing worth discussing until a few weeks on, if a sustained increase has been achieved or not. These sales-spike stories are otherwise about as exciting as talk of the sun rising tomorrow.
 
Back
Top