Nvidia, Sony, Cell, and RamBus *PTSD Flashbacks*

[HMBR]

We would have to analyze failure rates on PC market GPUs to come to a better assumption.

Didn't Nvidia have manufacturing problems with some of the G8X derivatives? Or was it the mobile G8X GPUs that were having major thermal/solder issues in laptops that caused a recall and lawsuits?

Iirc most of those G8X derivatives were 90nm based...I believe there were some 80nm G8Xs (note not the big G80 itself) that despite being lower models they had thermal and solder problems.

g86 and g84 were used for the 8400GS 8500GT, 8600GT, 8600GTS not to mention mobile, so most G8X were 80nm and had the worst reliability I ever experienced with graphics cards, all the 4 8600GTs I owned had random crashes and died a after a few months, I remember buying an HD 3850 and being so relived with finally having a stable card again... it was also a mess with all the laptops failing http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-g84-g86-chips-overheating,6121.html
I'll never understand how this didn't cause bigger problems for Nvidia...

 

[eastmen]

Release in 2006 with 512 megs?

It's a matter of timing....Microsoft rushed a generation jump too early in 2005.

They rushed the tech, CPU/GPU/Ram/storage.

The best Sony could have done is pre-plan for 2007 at 65nm and 55nm...2007 hardware design and ram targets...both companies should have done that.

Adding more ram doesn't seem to be a solution compared with current gen ram abundance and their refreshed mid-gen hardware doubling up+ their GPUs.



But isn't the Blu Ray drive and the PS3 heatsink system a dramatic difference over Xbox360?

I've played with many 2005-07 x360s...their heatsink system was no where near as complex as the PS3 06-08 and Blu Ray drive has to consuming a bit...considering it played three different console generations in one.

I have some Xbox360 magazine special where dev boxes are pictured...and prototype stuff... 90nm for the time was what yielded those clocks, cores, gpu and temps. Originally Microsoft was gonna put just 256MB and it wasn't until feedback requests called for that 512MB

An more powerful Xbox360 with built in HD-DVD would have saved a lot of headache...combined with my hindsight die shrinks...perhaps Microsoft would have avoided 2 Billions in loses due to RRoD and piracy.

Both Blu Ray and HD-DVD drives were relatively new cutting-edge technology with the asking price to validate it...consoles may have both been $600 price points but consumers would have had less reasons not to upgrade due to price fears theory.

And piracy would have taken longer with bigger newer storage media.

Eh , Sony had a storied history with the ps3's OS . Also dipping into the memory pool attached to the other processor ( gpu through cell , cell through gpu ) resulted in big performance hits.

You do 256 xdr for cell . 512 for the gpu . you wouldn't have been hurting for ram even if the 96mb os . You could have also taken advantage of bluray and had more textures and made nicer looking games.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sony's OS wasn't ready for an earlier launch. You couldn't even do background downloading until late March 2007 - it was the firmware update that coincided with the European PS3 launch. Even then that firmware didn't come pre-installed on the console, you had to bring it home, set it up then download and update the firmware for background downloading.

Back then Sony's software chops were not great. In retrospect it's obvious they were struggling with the transition to a desktop OS.