New PS3 board shown at CES
- Thread starter ADEX
- Start date
Betanumerical
Veteran
Yes the PS3 is said to last for 10 years, what this has to do with adding another 256mb of XDR ram and losing millions upon millions of dollars i dont know, what i do know is that it wont happen.
Well, the price of the kind of RAM they added is really low. The hardware probably wasn't being sold at a loss anymore either. And there was a demonstrable benefit in a key feature for a portable, battery life! The change could also allow them to spend less on the battery or drive making it a zero-sum change.
There are no corresponding benefits to a RAM increase as you've suggested for the PS3. As such I can guarantee it will never happen.
Another benefit of the RAM was that the built-in browser of the PSP-2000 could buffer more content.
As it is today I usually get annoyed every time I try to use the built-in browser of the PS3, it is not fast and I occassionally get an out of memory message.
If the browser worked flawless, the PS3 would be more versatile and actually replace one PC in my home. There are likely other applications that would benefit as well. (Off topic: If they make it available for games is a different question. That may be the case if Sony choose to do a "Wii" for the next generation.
)At some point in time adding more memory will be a very low extra cost and at first they may just do it in a hi-end SKU. I am all for it if Sony choose to do so.
I know this echos Ken Kutaragis plans for the PS3, extra memory, recordable BD, upgradeable hard drive and so on. He is no longer in charge, but I think some of the ideas may still be valid for a certain market, if it´s big enough to Sony care for that I don´t know.
If the browser worked flawless, the PS3 would be more versatile and actually replace one PC in my home. There are likely other applications that would benefit as well. (Off topic: If they make it available for games is a different question. That may be the case if Sony choose to do a "Wii" for the next generation.
The browser can be accessed in-game if the developers programmed for it. e.g., Home and Life with Playstation did it.
Gradthrawn
Veteran
I think Crossbar is referring to making the (purposed) additional memory available to games, and not just non-game applications.
My bad, I was refering to the added RAM not the browser. But as you mention it I am sure Home would benefit from some added RAM as well, it sure would benefit from some pre-caching when you walk up to the entrance of a place.
Edit: We are both bad.
Got any manufacturer quotes on the cost of another 256MB XDR chip, or even a single 512 one? I bet its not cheaper than the RAM in PSP. I don't think a RAM increase is really relevant in terms of its necessity or functionality as other have eluded to.
Unfortunately, I consider the PS3 browser to be fundamentally flawed. And has a hard time coping with several sites. PSP browser is similarly flawed considering the h/w, screen resolution and memory; I actually prefer using opera mini on a puny mobile to that.Crossbar said:
I think Sony should either completely revamp the integrated browser or drop it for a customized version of a renowned desktop browser. I think better and more resourseful software would be the first point of improvement before letting it eat more memory!
nihilistcanada
Newcomer
That is exactly what I was looking for. It seems I have a 65nm/90nm hybrid. Which is interesting because it supposedly draws as much power as the 65nm/65nm version.
Someone has got to work on their die shrinking process.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Doubt that will happen as unlike MS, I don't believe Sony now owns the rights to RSX. I believe Nvidia still owns the rights and licenses the use to Sony for use in the PS3. Similar to the MS/Nvidia relationship in the Xbox. Sony would have to get permission (and probably additional licensing fees) from Nvidia in order to do something along those lines.
With X360 MS wanted to have control over all components (if there weren't multiple sources available) and thus moved away from Nvidia to ATI who were willing to contract design of a chip which MS would then own.
Regards,
SB
I doubt the deals between MS/ATI and Sony/Nvidia differ that much. The reason MS had problems with Nvidia concerning the GPU in Xbox1 was that their deal included that Nvidia was responsible for the production of the chip. It was obviously hard to state in an agreement how fast production costs would come down and how Nvidia would pass the cost savings on to MS. Having control of the production is obviously essential to have total control of the costs. I think they even went to court to settle it in the end.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Nvidia more important still owned the right to all tech related to the GPU in the Xbox. The whole X360 legacy support of Xbox games hit a huge snag just because of this one thing. If I remember correctly Nvidia were demanding licensing fees from MS if they implemented backwards compatibility in X360 due to the games on Xbox having to use technology from the NV GPU in the Xbox. More specifically Nvidia proprietary calls.
MS didn't have a choice, they couldn't contract anyone other than Nvidia for production of those chips. A situation that was high up on the list of things to avoid with X360.
When MS commited to X360 they wanted to have full ownership of anything that didn't have multiple sources (DVD's for example can be obtained from multiple vendors thus allowing for bidding for contracts). I'm sure MS would have been quite happy to stay with Nvidia until they basically held them hostage when renewing contracts for the chip used in the original Xbox.
I'm not sure how much control Nvidia has over RSX compared to NV2A. But they do still own the outright right to it as far as I know. If Sony was smart they entered into a better contract than what MS had with Nvidia. However, it's most likely that they would still have to seek Nvidia's approval to merge RSX with the Cell CPU.
Regards,
SB
It goes without saying that such details would be regulated in the initial agreement.
There are so many ways to set up an agreement. Sony and Microsoft may both have paid an initial price for the design and thereafter they are paying a royalty for the IP-block and are free to arrange the IP-blocks in whatever configuration they want as long as they pay the royalty for each instance produced.
That is not the new motherboard
The one at the CES is not the new motherboard. It is actually the old one cechh I think, but if you want to know in the future what any motherboard is you can visit this link:
http://www.edepot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1376
It shows the evolution of the PS3 motherboards all in the same orientation and takes into account shrinkage by having all the motherboard pics scaled to a common reference point.
The one at the CES is not the new motherboard. It is actually the old one cechh I think, but if you want to know in the future what any motherboard is you can visit this link:
http://www.edepot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1376
It shows the evolution of the PS3 motherboards all in the same orientation and takes into account shrinkage by having all the motherboard pics scaled to a common reference point.