I'm curious if you can give five reasons why they would NOT, knowing that the tech is in there anyway, and that they will be advancing the subsystems regardless?Qroach said:
PSP's CPU not 333Mhz, only 222 ....suxx
- Thread starter version
- Start date
Panajev2001a
Veteran
jvd said:
If it was due to bad yields, why would have they binned all chips for 333 MHz CPU operation ?
The lock is purely software in Sony's libraries: it does not scream "we could not manufacture them at any faster clock".
Panajev2001a
Veteran
Simon F said:
Sorry, used spinned instead of binned.
Panajev2001a
Veteran
nAo said:
Thank you
.I do, however, think that what jvd is asking is "how do we know those processors will all get to 333 with no issues?"
How (and how throroughily) HAVE they been tested if the software locks them to 222 right now anyway?
...of course the answer may simply be "current units wouldn't matter anyway, as their lock will remain, but when PSP-nextmodel000 comes out, their chipware would all be perfectly solidified."
What are the chances, though, that if the battery could be substantially improved all on its own, current units could be UNlocked?
How (and how throroughily) HAVE they been tested if the software locks them to 222 right now anyway?
...of course the answer may simply be "current units wouldn't matter anyway, as their lock will remain, but when PSP-nextmodel000 comes out, their chipware would all be perfectly solidified."
What are the chances, though, that if the battery could be substantially improved all on its own, current units could be UNlocked?
I know, I know... Software. But if developers don't exceed the software lock, and if Sony doesn't WANT them to exceed it under current specs, it's pretty much the same, wouldn't you say?
...which is why I'm asking those who are more used to not only their hardware but their business practices whether or not a battery improvement alone (say they could get one with 25-50% more life that remains compatible) might make them ease up on current restrictions. Or whether we'd likely be waiting for a full upgrade (probably with a process shrink or other enhancements) to see it.
...and how that would sit with developers who have to keep all the first-generation units in mind as well.
...which is why I'm asking those who are more used to not only their hardware but their business practices whether or not a battery improvement alone (say they could get one with 25-50% more life that remains compatible) might make them ease up on current restrictions. Or whether we'd likely be waiting for a full upgrade (probably with a process shrink or other enhancements) to see it.
...and how that would sit with developers who have to keep all the first-generation units in mind as well.
Sony placed the restriction mainly to avoid extreme bad press about battery life at launch. Once they've cemented first impressions, they can ease the cap later, with or without the availability of stronger models of PSPs or batteries, and not cause an uproar over the instant shock of low battery time.
Panajev2001a
Veteran
jvd said:
How do we know they have been tested for 333 MHz operation ?
For starters, even though the current developers libs limit the clock-speed developers can set the CPU at each chip is still rated by the manufacturer as 1-333 MHz ready.
Fragmenting the user-base making only newer PSP's able to reach 333 MHz is something Sony KNOWS it cannot do.
Why advertise the 333 MHz clock-speed and promise it to developers ?
I also do not think the yields would be particularly bad because of the clock speed: in late 2000 they were making at 180 nm the GS with 4 MB of e-DRAM (a nice change happened when they switched from stacked capacitor structure to deep trenched capacitor structure for the e-DRAM) with a combined data path of 2560 bits all running at 150 MHz and they were fabbing a 300 MHz CPU like the Emotion Engine.
What is in there to tell you that at 90 nm in 2004-2005 they could not manufacture an SoC like the PSP one (333 MHz CPU [less complex than the EE mind you] and a 166 MHz GPU) ?
Well it may be rated at that , but its software locked to a diffrent speed.
what if the software lock never gets lifted ? you ever think that ? What if for all time it stays at 222 .
Clever advertising as it says speeds from 1-333mhz . it doesn't ever actually have to run at that speed.
As for developers well the same reason why nintendo changed the cpu and gpu speeds of the cube , why ms changed the gpu speeds of the xbox ... shit happens basicly
Right but whtas that have to do with the psp . because a part from 2000 had good yields the psp has to have good yields ?
the fact that none of these chips are running at 333mhz ? Aside from that , i never said they couldn't make them , i siad the yields might not be good enough . What happens if 50% of the chips were hitting 333 the rest fell short ? That would be alot of lost chips that could be saved where the only competion is the less graphicly advanced ds
Panajev2001a
Veteran
jvd said:
This is different from what you are describing here: after launch, MS was not still saying their GPU could be clocked at 250-300 MHz.
Yes, the technology included in PSP is not really much more complex than the one you find in PlayStation 2 (it is not a jump forward in complexity: same amount of e-DRAM [simpler arrangement too], only one vector co-processor without stand-alone mode, more compact GPU core, etc...): sure it solves some lack of brute-force with more elegance and efficiency, but there are some parts that were stream-lined too (e-DRAM combined data bus width for example: from 2,560 bits to 256 bits).
Technology (especially SCE's manufacturing technology) progressed quite a bit since the original EE and GS were designed and manufactured: battery life and heat (though I think we can exclude the latter as the problem the lock was put on in the first place) would be the only two real problems I see that explain why Sony put it as a library lock instead of puitting it as a TRC requirement.
No they didn't , but sony is doing it and so far none of the systems are running at 333mhz , or do you disagree and have proof that there are systems running at 333mhz ?
But its not the same tech. YOu don't know what problems they had or didn't have with the chips . Your just assuming .
Basicly all your doing is assuming and have nothing to back it up with , you just feel .
There is no proof that it iwll ever run at 333 and if its a heat problem or batery life problem how much bad publicity do you think they will get when a psp catches on fire or suddenly people are getting 2 hours battery life . You think that wont hit the news media ?
The chip manufacturer chooses the maximum clockspeed back during the chip's design process. The unit wouldn't have left the design tweak stage with a rating it couldn't stably attain since the design could simply be retargeted for a slower goal at that point. There's no reason they'd go into production with a more obviously complex chip than they had to.
Of course, the manufacturer can't be sure early on just how well it will run that speed when it's implemented into a real world product; they just know that it can run it. In Sony's case, the chips ended up not working efficiently enough with full capacity in the actual product for their standards of battery life at launch.
Of course, the manufacturer can't be sure early on just how well it will run that speed when it's implemented into a real world product; they just know that it can run it. In Sony's case, the chips ended up not working efficiently enough with full capacity in the actual product for their standards of battery life at launch.
Similar threads
