A look at the 40GB PS3 Motherboard

[dess]

They dint say "only because of GS", and besides, I think the GS aint getting juice unless you play PS2 Games anyway (As this explains why running PS2 games consumes ~20 Watt more than anything else).
The wording is: "because of different electronical components".

Right, they didn't say it's only because of the GS - it's me who can't see any other mayor change in components that could explain such a significant reduction of power consumption.

Or could the removal of the card reader and a pair of USB connection, as well, and perhaps a change of the PSU for a much more efficient one all add up the 60W reduction? I don't think so.

 

[Npl]

Right, they didn't say it's only because of the GS - it's me who can't see any other mayor change in components that could explain such a significant reduction of power consumption.

Or could the removal of the card reader and a pair of USB connection, as well, and perhaps a change of the PSU for a much more efficient one all add up the 60W reduction? I don't think so.

Nope. 65nm would be the most obvious conclusion.
But as I understood the article they might have used off-the-shelf parts before (as in already available, even if its still Sony-Internal Stuff) and now have taken the time to cut away parts and adapt everything nicely. For example I heard someone say that previously there was an external Sata-Bridge as the Soutbridge had only IDE, that kinda stuff.

 

[Vitaly Vidmirov]

There are only 2 inductors (R33) on new PCB in cpu power supply (2/3 shiny elements below the CELL) instead of 3 in previous PCBs. So power consumption was reduced by 30%(?). This clearly indicating the 65nm CELL as far as i understand.

 

[dskneo]

it appears we are all wrong

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/03/sony-says-the-40gb-ps3-is-still-using-90nm-chips/

sony states its a new cell design still in 90nm

 

[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?

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

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

:smile:

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]

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?