That's the same info as Rangers linked earlier, just digested and rephrased by Maxconsole.
When are the 65nm PS3's and XB360's shipping?
- Thread starter zealotonous
- Start date
- Status
Justifies the $400 price? The 65nm CPU and GPU shouldn't be used to justify any price increase.
I also guess this answers my previous question at least with MS.
Fu3lFr3nzy
Regular
They removed the copper heatpipe from the CPU HS?!?!
Wouldnt that make it worse
Wouldnt that make it worse
Ummm, there's zero proof the GPU is 65nm, in fact that's very unlikely, as it wasn't even planned. And the CPU, well it's still up in the air if it's 65nm as well. Check Shifty's comment.
Why not? MS can price however they want, you or anybody else is free to buy or not to buy. It's not a tax.
Even then, MS is doing the farthest thing from using 65nm to "justify" the Halo 3 price. We dont even know if it has 65nm, for starters. That would be because MS doesn't advertise it on the box, and never will, which would be strange if they're using it "justify" the price. If anything, MS tries their damndest to hide the transition to 65nm. Also, I'm sure you're assuming only Halo3 360's have 65nm (which again, is NOT confirmed), who knows if that is true, it is something that will trickle in to all Xboxes, and it may already be in brand new premium or elites. The only way to tell is bust open your 360 and take the heatsink off.
The things MS are using to "justify" the H3 sku are a different paint job, and the loyalty of H3 fanboys. They also throw in a play and charge kit (worth $15). Is it worth it? Hell no not to me, especially since it's so damn ugly, but it seems to be a pretty good seller for them. I've heard reports a lot were sold along with the game.
Last edited by a moderator:
The GPU will remain in 90nm certainly because of the EDRAM
joker454 >>>
Seems to be speculations.
It was 38C in my house during the heatwave that hit Europe this Summer
You are right, though. When it's that hot you have to adjust your priorities. The important thing is to just stay alive.
I though they could use different processes on the two? Aka 65nm GPU core and 90nm EDRAM would be a possibility?
But anyway, last I heard the GPU transition to 65nm had been delayed on the order of months. That was from Takahashi. The CPU transition to 65nm is the only thing that is imminent, AFAIK.
The $50 premium for the Halo sku is justified by the Halo scheme.
Explain, how well it would go over with the general consumers by releasing a $400 Premium who only difference was the cpu and gpu size, whose only benefit to the consumer is normal reliability rates?
Its like charging a $50.00 premium by offering what consumers should reasonably expect from a product in the first place.
General consumers? Probably not too well. I guess Laa-Yosh and some others might find that enough added value, though (to each their own). However, since MS isn't doing so in the real world: it is not an issue, not even a hypothetical one. So what's there to argue about?
Except, they're not.
We have no concrete evidence if that is possible (barring Dave's one-liner question retorts
). Rather, there's certainly no public info regarding the technical hurdles of connecting them in the first place, and they may have run into some problems. Clocking the smaller processes is trickier and providing the correct voltage to each die may be a bit more complex than we know (considering that it's a somewhat unique configuration with two non-identical cores on a single socket space).
Or suppose that the retail motherboard wasn't designed for much variability in voltage selection to prevent hacking. They would have to produce specific lines of mobos for the 90/65 combinations. (This one is just pure speculation.
)
hmm...
The size difference is just so negligible even if we consider the slightly different angles here. Perhaps they removed a couple sections that were no longer needed given the maturity of the manufacturing process:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-fpfxbox
But would they even bother removing the test/debug or the SRAM redundancy
The size difference is just so negligible even if we consider the slightly different angles here. Perhaps they removed a couple sections that were no longer needed given the maturity of the manufacturing process:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-fpfxbox
IBM said:
But would they even bother removing the test/debug or the SRAM redundancy
Some rough measurements show the original die (from the size of the shiny cover) is 16% of the board size (active board, dark green and excluding the borders), and the new GPU is 14% of the board size. This would be an extremely lousy process shrink!
- Status
Similar threads
