PSX not at 90nm?

[London Geezer]

Re: ...

The lesson of this fiasco is that SCEI is not very trustworthy, any claims made by SCEI representatives should be met with skepticism.

Because we don't already? I think we've been through the 66million polygons and the rest many times already, why does it always come back up? Considering that it is not a lie.
MS weren't exactly conservatives themselves in pre-release Hype...
This crusade to show us how evil some corporations are is still going on right...

What this means at the moment is that PS3 will probably (just probably) be delayed. They do have 2 years though, so there's little we can say about that.

It also means that Sony were expecting a little too much from their fab capabilities, which are still behind other manufacturers at the moment. Rember the price points too, Intel might have 90nm pieces working now, but certainly not at EE+GS's price point.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[jvd]

As usual you have completely missed the points made, opting for your usual "Sony fanboi VS everyone else" approach. Unsurprisingly.

I haven't missed anything . I have read every post ni the thread and have understood at least 75% of things posted and what I didn't understand was the stuff about pads and what not .

No one is saying this story is not true.

no they are just pushing aside the issue and are talking about other things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The point here is that people are accusing Sony of lying since the beginning. They are saying that Sony has been lying about using 90nm and were planning to use 130nm all the way from the beginning, although advertising for 90nm.
Of that, there is no proof. And it is also very very unlikely that the same has happened.

Yet from the proof here sony did use a 130nm chip instead of 90nm chip. Which means they lied. From when i don't know but they did lie . And that is the issue at hand . If sony has lied , why they have lied , have they already lied in the past. Will they lie in the future .

All that is being side steped by what I view as people making excuse this away. Much like the nvidia dx 9 issues and cheating .

If Sony got caught into something and could not complete the 90nm process, and opted for the moment to use a 130nm one, now that's more likely

THey still anounced that they were using 90nm . There is no word from sony that it is using 130nm .

Which still means they lie . So why are you trying to once again make an excuse for them .

If that was to happen then they should have put out a press release stating this . Instead of continueing to lie to thier consumers that they were buying a chip based on a 90nm processer when in fact it ws a 130nm .

One corporation does not to lie for 8 months and plan to use a process while advertising another. All behind people's backs. KNOWING they would be found out.

You should start reading the papers london boy. This has happened before on much bigger issues than this .

Really, someone needs a reality check.

yes you really do .




The problem I see is if they are lieing about this what are they going to lie about in the future ? Are they going to release the psp with less ram while claiming more. Or mabye a lower clock speed.

Will they release the ps3 with lower specs that what they promise .

It will be interesting .

But to make excuses for a faceless company that in the end is just harming you is stupid .

 

[London Geezer]

If that was to happen then they should have put out a press release stating this . Instead of continueing to lie to thier consumers that they were buying a chip based on a 90nm processer when in fact it ws a 130nm .

I agree with what you are saying, in general terms, but did you think that maybe (just maybe) the consumers wouldn't give a flying rat about the size of the transistors inside their new PSX, if the thing is working perfectly fine?

I'm not trying to find excuses (again you missed the point). I'm just trying to give explanations.

YES they have lied and made us think that their fabs are on par with the best out there. YES the current batch on PSX has a 130nm version of the EE+GS.

But we don't know why. And feeding the Deadmeat machine is just wrong, since he already brought up stupid issues that have nothing to do with the thread.

But hey, this is you jvd, so why am i even arguing, like i don't know you...

 

[V3]

I find that hard to swallow.
I could believe the original explanation - Inadvertent false advertising, eg. they couldn't get 90nm to work on time - and were caught with pants down when it happened, so they attempted to quietly skirt the issue rather then admitting the problem...

Its false advertising either way you look at it, there is no way a PR can spin their way out of it, unless Sony came out and sue SI report or SI came out with an apolagy.

However if EE+GS@130nm wasn't given a green light all along, I find it even harder to swallow, that mean the Sony Engineers managed to redesign 90nm chips into 130nm in one month or even less. And to boot, it managed about the same size.

They have 130nm for sometimes, that means they could have made EE+GS chip two years ago.

Of course that bring another theory, that Sony was also late with their 130nm process. I mean afterall EE+GS is less than 60 million transistors chip. And many other companies were making something much greater on 150nm process.

But what you suggest - to brag with PR of 90nm chip in PSX for 8months, while planning for that entire time NOT to use 90nm at all, that's pushing it (unless in Sony exec land, false advertising is legalized).

Well once they got EE+GS@130nm, I am pretty sure they might switch to it straight away. But yes, that's what I am suggesting, that Sony is passing up 130nm as 90nm tech to gained investor confidence. Remember all their Transformation 60 plan, big bang and all.

Like I said Sony got some explaining to do.

 

[London Geezer]

Like I said Sony got some explaining to do.

And until we get some, we shouldn't really comment. Especially with people who traditionally come up with:

SCEI is one of the least trustworthy of major corporations in terms of honesty about its figures and marketting. Remember "66 million polygons/s(TM)" and "Toy Story in Real Time(TM)"? It wasn't not so long ago that Kutaragi and Co were preachnig "Teraflop on a chip(TM)" and "1000x the power of PlayStation2(TM)".

SCEI lied about the readiness of its process technology and was caught with its pants down, that should be enough to entertain us for a while

i'm out of here.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I agree with what you are saying, in general terms, but did you think that maybe (just maybe) the consumers wouldn't give a flying rat about the size of the transistors inside their new PSX, if the thing is working perfectly fine?

This is absolutely true - its of no concern to consumers whatsoever that they have a 130nm chip instead of a 90nm chip just so long as the bow they bought does what they though it would do. However, its the shareholders that will take a lot of interest in statements like these as quite a lot of that they are being sold on is the technology capabilities.

 

[V3]

And until we get some, we shouldn't really comment.

Ohh we can comment on the SI report, and we can speculate on what happend. I don't see anything wrong there, that's what we do here all the time

Look I am sure PS2 66 million/s figure can be recreated in some form of test, AFAIK that's not some peak figure, but its actually benchmark.

As for 1 TFLOPS that's a theoritical peak figure, and using the simple method of calculation, it should be easy to derive from other specification. If the theoritical calculation gives less than that, than they can't claim it.

As for the EE+GS@130nm, I find it just bizzare

 

[jvd]

I agree with what you are saying, in general terms, but did you think that maybe (just maybe) the consumers wouldn't give a flying rat about the size of the transistors inside their new PSX, if the thing is working perfectly fine?

Does it matter . ITs still a lie. To me its a big lie. Esp with the hype of sonys advanced line and how they are going to be making .65 chips by the end of the year. Yet they aren't even making 90nm chips now . Doesn't make much sense .

Perhaps they are lieing about the newer proceses too ?

I'm not trying to find excuses (again you missed the point). I'm just trying to give explanations

I'm sorry but the above comes to me as an excuse .

Your basicly saying . Hey it doesn't matter as long as it did what they say it does .

YES they have lied and made us think that their fabs are on par with the best out there. YES the current batch on PSX has a 130nm version of the EE+GS.

Yup they lied. There can only be 2 reason why they lied in my opinion.

1) they had made these chips on 130nm because the 90nm was not ramping well .

2) thier 90nm is not up to par at all and they have known this for a very long time but didn't want to loose face and so they did this thinking they wouldn't be found out .

But we don't know why. And feeding the Deadmeat machine is just wrong, since he already brought up stupid issues that have nothing to do with the thread

Why bring up deadmeat. This has nothing to do with him. This is you and me .

This is just more of your trolling of deadmeat.

But hey, this is you jvd, so why am i even arguing, like i don't know you...

What is this . Is this supposed to be a personal insult or something ? Because if it is you really need to rise above this because It wont affect me .

 

[London Geezer]

I agree with what you are saying, in general terms, but did you think that maybe (just maybe) the consumers wouldn't give a flying rat about the size of the transistors inside their new PSX, if the thing is working perfectly fine?

This is absolutely true - its of no concern to consumers whatsoever that they have a 130nm chip instead of a 90nm chip just so long as the bow they bought does what they though it would do. However, its the shareholders that will take a lot of interest in statements like these as quite a lot of that they are being sold on is the technology capabilities.

Yes we discussed that part earlier in the thread, and i only mentioned the consumers (and put it in italics too) because that's what jvd was referring to.

This ultimately means that Sony's fabs are not on par with the best out there, although as i said, the EE+GS part is being sold at a MUCH smaller price than other 90nm (or 130nm too for that matter) pieces. I think people here are forgetting about that.

we'll have to see what happens, i'm sure we'll hear more about this very soon

 

[London Geezer]

This is just more of your trolling of deadmeat.

Sure j, whatever you say...

 

[chapban.]

I always don see the fascination with SCE fabs. They are new and less experienced compared to the oldies like TMSC, IBM, Intel. It be hard for me to see that they can just be that bit more advanced than the rest? Possible? Geninuely asking?

 

[Deadmeat]

...

To London Boy

I agree with what you are saying, in general terms, but did you think that maybe (just maybe) the consumers wouldn't give a flying rat about the size of the transistors inside their new PSX, if the thing is working perfectly fine?

Of course consumers wouldn't see a difference. Investors who bought Sony shares on the promise that Sony group would soon have the world's most advanced fab capability(Better than Intel's, IBM's, and AMD's) will see a difference, however.

But we don't know why.

Sony's 90 nm fabs are probably not working right now. It took a while for experienced fabs like Intel, IBM, and AMD to iron out the kinks, I expect SCEI to take even longer.

This ultimately means that Sony's fabs are not on par with the best out there

But CELL builds on the promise that SCEI would have the best 65 nm fab in the world, a magical fab so advanced the chips coming out of its line would each pack half a billion transistors, clock at 4 Ghz, and burn only 20~30 watts.

although as i said, the EE+GS part is being sold at a MUCH smaller price than other 90nm (or 130nm too for that matter) pieces. I think people here are forgetting about that.

Production cost is about the same. Yet Intel can afford to price its chips much higher. Now tell me which has a more desirable business model.
To V3

As for 1 TFLOPS that's a theoritical peak figure, and using the simple method of calculation, it should be easy to derive from other specification. If the theoritical calculation gives less than that, than they can't claim it.

Of course CELL board could reach 1 TFLOPS using 8~16 chips chained together. But you won't see this in a 48,000 Yen console.

PSX3 != 1 TFLOPS

To JVD

Perhaps they are lieing about the newer proceses too ?

I am sure SCEI did test fab a few sample devices on 65 nm. But Intel did this last year and will not go into mass production until 2005. All it says is that SCEI is behind, not ahead of, industry leaders in fab capability.

To Chapban

I always don see the fascination with SCE fabs. They are new and less experienced compared to the oldies like TMSC, IBM, Intel. It be hard for me to see that they can just be that bit more advanced than the rest? Possible? Geninuely asking?

This is all because of CELL and the 1 TFLOP broadband engine thing described in the patent. It requires a fab capability far beyond what Intel and IBM has to bring such a mystical device out. Maybe in 2010, but not in 2005.

 

[Deadmeat]

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200310/03-1007E
In this press release dated Nov 27th, 2003, Sony clearly claims that the PSX uses "90 nm EE+GS".

 

[London Geezer]

Re: ...

a magical fab so advanced the chips coming out of its line would each pack half a billion transistors, clock at 4 Ghz, and burn only 20~30 watts.

You're the one saying that, i don't see anyone around here actually saying something like that with a straight face.

Production cost is about the same. Yet Intel can afford to price its chips much higher. Now tell me which has a more desirable business model.

You wouldn't know, you barely know what a business model is.

Of course CELL board could reach 1 TFLOPS using 8~16 chips chained together. But you won't see this in a 48,000 Yen console.
PSX3 != 1 TFLOPS

The 1Tflop will probably be like the 66Million(TM) claim. It IS real, the hardware can achieve it in some useless conditions, absolutely useless in terms of ultimate in-game performance. Again, you're the one who keeps bringing that number up again and again, u're the only one around here, everyone else got over it a long time ago. Same for the 66million figure.

 

[nobie]

Re: ...

MS weren't exactly conservatives themselves in pre-release Hype...

MS is evil too

there's an old saying, that all large organizations are inevitably corrupt to a certain degree.

 

[chapban.]

I have a feeling 1TFLOPS is gona be calculate like how Nvidia does their's. Now IF true, that be nice to see how people reacts to that, as we have seen how many snide remarks Nvidia gets for their FLOPS ratings.

 

[chapban.]

IF i ain mistaken, BUT you see, SCE never specifically-outta-KK's-mouth, said PS3 will have 1TFLOPS, just 1000x PS2 from an EGM interview with Okamoto(?).

1TFLOPS is more from well, not sure, the number seem to come out from somewhere(even the Cell presentations don do the 1TFLOPS thing). Possibly from the usual talk. Yeay know, we have seen such usual stuffy from SCE, for ex, like how hollywood/sillicon-valley are extremely short sighted with their aims to push more polygons. Yeay know, he didn't say specifically when, he just said the thing.

EDIT: IN CONCLUSION, i think everyone should drop the 1TFLOPS talk, until further concrete evidence surface. Just stick to 1000x PS2. There is no need to set ourselves up for a possible fall.

 

[London Geezer]

I think that was english, but i still don't understand a thing.

 

[nobie]

wouldn't 1000x PS2 be 6 teraflops?

 

[kaching]

I find it interesting that, as we're talking about companies lying to consumers and providing examples of such, some of you seem to be immediately discarding the possibility that SI themselves could be lying. The power of accusation to influence the ideas of others...and expose their biases.

Has anybody actually plunked down $1000 to see the SI report yet?

Is there any independent confirmation of their findings?

Is there any indication that they tried to work with Sony at all?