Pictures of new PS3 console [CECH-4000]

[Invalid]

PS2 BC was scrapped because people don't play PS2 titles anymore. They weren't going to keep putting an EE + RS chip in there just because some 0,05% of the PS3 customers want to play Final Fantasy X, even though many of them still keep a functional PS2 unit.
BC that requires dedicated hardware made sense during the initial stages of the console, where the added portfolio came as a true advantage. The PS3 now has a very large game line-up with many great titles as it is. BC compatibility with ~10 year titles isn't that important anymore.

While i agree with your post sony removed bc because ee+gs cost them sth like 20-30$ per unit iirc and not because lack of costumers interest for bc.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

While i agree with your post sony removed bc because ee+gs cost them sth like 20-30$ per unit iirc and not because lack of costumers interest for bc.

That cost was there from the beginning, when Sony designed the first PS3 iteration.
It's a trade-off between how many more users will purchase the console if there's BC or not.

All I said was that when the PS3 launched, they figured the extra cost for the EE+GS was worth the extra sales. Later on, when the PS3 had a rich game portfolio, it wasn't worth anymore.

 

[Nesh]

That cost was there from the beginning, when Sony designed the first PS3 iteration.
It's a trade-off between how many more users will purchase the console if there's BC or not.

All I said was that when the PS3 launched, they figured the extra cost for the EE+GS was worth the extra sales. Later on, when the PS3 had a rich game portfolio, it wasn't worth anymore.

I dont think it was exactly that. The PS3 was a very costly piece of hardware. Sales were slow. Sony needed to lower the price fast to boost sales. Lowering the retail price without lowering manufacturing costs would have generated huge loses. So they removed 2 USB ports, they replaced the 60GB HDD with 40GB, they removed the slots for memory cards, and they removed BC completely.

 

[zed]

looks as ugly as sin, though Ive always said for years here the xbox360 looked better than the ps3.
Though personally Im a fan of top loaders, when you watch as many discs as me, you want a more reliable machine

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I have no problem with the way it looks. Has someone made a size comparison to the current model?

 

[Brad Grenz]

I dont think it was exactly that. The PS3 was a very costly piece of hardware. Sales were slow. Sony needed to lower the price fast to boost sales. Lowering the retail price without lowering manufacturing costs would have generated huge loses. So they removed 2 USB ports, they replaced the 60GB HDD with 40GB, they removed the slots for memory cards, and they removed BC completely.

They were right, too. Sales shot up after B/C was gone because, not coincidentally, it allowed them to get under $400.

 

[The Seventh Taylor]

Has someone made a size comparison to the current model?

Someone has. Several have, in fact.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I don't think it looks that bad. Anyway I don't care as long as it's cheap. Might buy one if it's ~150 SomeCurrency.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Someone has. Several have, in fact.

It's nothing like as superslim as the PSTwo. I guess it'll never get down to that size.

 

[Arwin]

It's nothing like as superslim as the PSTwo. I guess it'll never get down to that size.

Certainly not as long as we want to be able to put a harddrive in there, I'm guessing.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

It's smaller than what I initially thought. The chips are probably still hotter than the ones in the launch PS2, so PStwo size is not reachable imo, also this still has built in PSU?

 

[antwan]

It's smaller than what I initially thought. The chips are probably still hotter than the ones in the launch PS2, so PStwo size is not reachable imo, also this still has built in PSU?

PSU built in is confirmed; look at the power cord.

 

[Rangers]

Just noticed this in the neogaf thread on this topic, with a mod saying the source poster is reliable

It seems like 179,229,269 are the magic numbers

Yeah so that's the pricing apparently.

Pretty good, better than I had stated.

Really good actually. 16GB of storage and a Blu Ray player for 179?

 

[scooby_dooby]

I dunno, it's not really much thinner at all, and the width is the same, so all you're really saving is some depth in your AV stack.

And for that I lose the much nicer design, and much handier front loader. I think I'll go pick up a 2nd PS3 very soon before these come out...

 

[Prophecy2k]

I dunno, it's not really much thinner at all, and the width is the same, so all you're really saving is some depth in your AV stack.

And for that I lose the much nicer design, and much handier front loader. I think I'll go pick up a 2nd PS3 very soon before these come out...

Don't forget power consumption & noise tho... If Sony did things right, this should be a pretty cool and quiet unit, which for me is all i'm really concerned about at this point.

 

[ban25]

I dunno, it's not really much thinner at all, and the width is the same, so all you're really saving is some depth in your AV stack.

And for that I lose the much nicer design, and much handier front loader. I think I'll go pick up a 2nd PS3 very soon before these come out...

Yeah, I'm considering buying a PS3 Slim just in case, along with a PS2 Slim, as those have started to increase in price.

 

[AlNom]

http://www.psdevwiki.com/ps3/File:NPX-001_(top_view).jpg

How odd.

GDDR5 (2x32-bit bus).

Also tiny tiny RSX.

edit:

1.3Gbps

 

[Deleted member 13524]

http://www.psdevwiki.com/ps3/File:NPX-001_(top_view).jpg

How odd.

GDDR5 (2x32-bit bus).

Also tiny tiny RSX.

edit:

1.3Gbps

So back in 2013 Sony halved the GDDR bus width to 64bit when 2x 5.2GT/s GDDR5 memory chips were cheaper to implement than 4x 2.6GT/s GDDR3.

Goes to show Sony would be no stranger to switching the memory on the current PS4 models to 128bit when GDDR6 becomes available and cheap.
The base PS4 uses 256bit 5.5 GT/s GDDR5, which should be easily changeable to 128bit GDDR6 at 11GT/s (underclocked from lowest available 12 GT/s chips that Hynix will have available at "downvolted" 1.25V).
And the Pro model can use regular 14 GT/s chips at 128bit too.

 

[Nesh]

So back in 2013 Sony halved the GDDR bus width to 64bit when 2x 5.2GT/s GDDR5 memory chips were cheaper to implement than 4x 2.6GT/s GDDR3.

Goes to show Sony would be no stranger to switching the memory on the current PS4 models to 128bit when GDDR6 becomes available and cheap.
The base PS4 uses 256bit 5.5 GT/s GDDR5, which should be easily changeable to 128bit GDDR6 at 11GT/s (underclocked from lowest available 12 GT/s chips that Hynix will have available at "downvolted" 1.25V).
And the Pro model can use regular 14 GT/s chips at 128bit too.

Newer PS3 models have a GDDR5 memory?
I d think this was impossible for compatibility issues

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Newer PS3 models have a GDDR5 memory?
I d think this was impossible for compatibility issues

Yup, models manufactured from 2013 onwards. The chips mentioned by @AlBran 's post are labeled K4G10325FG, which are Samsung GDDR5 1Gb (128MB) each:

https://www.samsung.com/us/business/oem-solutions/pdfs/PSG_1H_2012.pdf

This also means Sony (or nvidia?) probably had to make changes to RSX's memory controller.