Support NeoGAF

ElFly · Oct 30, 2007

The gpu is still 90nm?

Not that it matters, just curious.

Raist · Oct 30, 2007

huh, just noticed this... is it me or the southbridge got a die shrink in the PAL 60GB (and obviously in the 40GB too) ?

speculawyer · Oct 30, 2007

Wow . . . since I pretty much don't use BC, I'm kinda jealous of the low power usage of the newer 40GB model.

I guess I'll have to fire up God of War to feel I am getting my money's worth.

1-D_FTW · Oct 30, 2007

bcn-ron said:
It* consumes 190W under load. End of story. I've measured it myself. Stop doubting this number.

*the European 60GB model, which is basically the same thing as the American 80GB model

What am I doubting? Are you saying the Engadget number is bullshit? I know the old model uses around 200 watts under load. Engadget is saying the new model is 135? I'm asking where's the link that verifies this?

Reading comprehension FTL if you think I've said anything else. So are you stating the new 40GB model consumes 190 watts and Endadget is full of shit? Cause anything else completely ignores what I posted.

blu · Oct 30, 2007

gcubed said:
no one is questioning the power supply unit at all, the point was made about the power draw of the unit itself. The power draw of the unit (60GB) is 190W, no matter if the power supply is 300W or 3000W

why do i get the feeling we keep talking across each other? ok, let me try once again.

my whole point of making a parallel to desktop PSUs was for the sake of drawing an efficiency factor for the PSU, as i was trying to estimate the actual PS3 peak consumption past the PSU. as it turns out, nobody has got any numbers on that yet (i originally assumed the 190W were measured past the PSU - they weren't), so one can only guess using external power draw ratings and PSU efficiency figures how much the actual electornics in the PS3 consume. now, as a power-draw rating i used the figure given by the manufacturer - the proverbial 380W, which many people say may be a gross overestimate - very likely the case. so do we understand each other now?

1-D_FTW · Oct 30, 2007

blu said:
why do i get the feeling we keep talking across each other? ok, let me try once again.

my whole point of making a parallel to desktop PSUs was for the sake of drawing an efficiency factor for the PSU, as i was trying to estimate the actual PS3 peak consumption past the PSU. as it turns out, nobody has got any numbers on that yet (i originally assumed the 190W were measured past the PSU - they weren't), so one can only guess using external power draw ratings and PSU efficiency figures how much the actual electornics in the PS3 consume. now, as a power-draw rating i used the figure given by the manufacturer - the proverbial 380W, which many people say may be a gross overestimate - very likely the case. so do we understand each other now?

Kill-a-watt (which everyone quotes) does measure at the wall (and past the power supply). The number of 200 watts is measuring after the efficiency. That's the final number. If the power supply inefficiency is 70, then the PS3 would be consuming 140 watts and 60 watts of waste. But everyone is talking at the wall numbers.

Which is why I said if if Endadget is correct and the new number is 135, it's either a CPU die shrink or they went from a PSU with a 65 percent efficiency to 90 percent. Only those two things can account for the dramatic decrease.

EDIT: I reread and don't understand what you're saying. You realize those number are all post power supply numbers, right?

blu · Oct 30, 2007

1-D_FTW said:
Kill-a-watt (which everyone quotes) does measure at the wall (and past the power supply). The number of 200 watts is measuring after the efficiency. That's the final number. If the power supply inefficiency is 70, then the PS3 would be consuming 140 watts and 60 watts of waste. But everyone is talking at the wall numbers.

Which is why I said if if Endadget is correct and the new number is 135, it's either a CPU die shrink or they went from a PSU with a 65 percent efficiency to 90 percent. Only those two things can account for the dramatic decrease.

EDIT: I reread and don't understand what you're saying. You realize those number are all post power supply numbers, right?

by 'post' and 'pre' i mean the direction of the power flow. if something is measure at the wall it is 'pre' PSU, if it is measure in the device at the lines coming out of the PSU - it's 'post'. that's what' i meant all this time. and from my understanding, kill-a-watt measures at the wall, ergo pre-PSU.

ed: ok, that was not quite a good explanation either. 'pre' - power draw including PSU inefficiencies. 'post' - power draw excluding PSU inefficiencies. that's the best teminology i can think of.

Rolf NB · Oct 30, 2007

1-D_FTW said:
What am I doubting? Are you saying the Engadget number is bullshit? I know the old model uses around 200 watts under load. Engadget is saying the new model is 135? I'm asking where's the link that verifies this?

Reading comprehension FTL if you think I've said anything else. So are you stating the new 40GB model consumes 190 watts and Endadget is full of shit? Cause anything else completely ignores what I posted.

I thought you were one of the "But the PSU is rated 380W this can't be right!" faction. I see now that this was a poor interpretation on my part.

I have nothing to say about the 40GB model's power consumption. I can only confirm the power consumption of the old model to be 190W. Sorry.

Raist · Oct 30, 2007

blu said:
why do i get the feeling we keep talking across each other? ok, let me try once again.

my whole point of making a parallel to desktop PSUs was for the sake of drawing an efficiency factor for the PSU, as i was trying to estimate the actual PS3 peak consumption past the PSU. as it turns out, nobody has got any numbers on that yet (i originally assumed the 190W were measured past the PSU - they weren't), so one can only guess using external power draw ratings and PSU efficiency figures how much the actual electornics in the PS3 consume. now, as a power-draw rating i used the figure given by the manufacturer - the proverbial 380W, which many people say may be a gross overestimate - very likely the case. so do we understand each other now?

I thought your whole point was saying that 190W was BS and that it would more likely be around 250-280W ?

So yeah, nobody measured it past-PSU, but still, if you take into account the efficiency (let's say 90%), since the max power consumption pre-PSU is 200W, the actual peak power consumption would be 180W, not 280.

blu · Oct 30, 2007

Raist said:
I thought your whole point was saying that 190W was BS and that it would more likely be around 250-280W ?

So yeah, nobody measured it past-PSU, but still, if you take into account the efficiency (let's say 90%), since the max power consumption pre-PSU is 200W, the actual peak power consumption would be 180W, not 280.

the 190W figure itself is not BS, but it's a measurement under some load. i was looking for the absolute peak theoretical consumption as estimated by the manufacturer, and that's why i've been referring to the manufacturer's figure all this time. now, apparently there's some safety margin in this fugure which makes this whole effort rather vague.

Raist · Oct 30, 2007

blu said:
the 190W figure itself is not BS, but it's a measurement under some load. i was looking for the absolute peak theoretical consumption as estimated my the manufacturer, and that's why i've been referring to the manufacturer's figure all this time. now, apparently ther's some safety margin in this fugure which makes this whole effort rather vague.

Well, yeah, the security margin indeed looks very high, considering that max consumption seems to be around 200W. Makes wondering why they put a 380W PSU in the first place.

1-D_FTW · Oct 30, 2007

Raist said:
Well, yeah, the security margin indeed looks very high, considering that max consumption seems to be around 200W. Makes wondering why they put a 380W PSU in the first place.

I'm no electrical engineer, but I wonder if there's a brief burst at startup that electronics have. Just a millisecond at startup. All electronics have wattage stickers that are vastly higher than actual usage numbers. And there must be some reason for this. So my ignorant theory is a start up burst that has to be accounted for (otherwise it'd blow a fuse.)

blu · Oct 30, 2007

1-D_FTW said:
I'm no electrical engineer, but I wonder if there's a brief burst at startup that electronics have. Just a millisecond at startup. All electronics have wattage stickers that are vastly higher than actual usage numbers. And there must be some reason for this. So my ignorant theory is a start up burst that has to be accounted for (otherwise it'd blow a fuse.)

your ignorant theory sounds quite plausible for an 'ignorant theory' : )

Raist · Oct 30, 2007

1-D_FTW said:
I'm no electrical engineer, but I wonder if there's a brief burst at startup that electronics have. Just a millisecond at startup. All electronics have wattage stickers that are vastly higher than actual usage numbers. And there must be some reason for this. So my ignorant theory is a start up burst that has to be accounted for (otherwise it'd blow a fuse.)

Sounds about right, yeah, but still, the margin seems really high IMO

Mefisutoferesu · Oct 30, 2007

More than likely Sony has a PSU that handles more Wattage than needed in the case that they need more Wattage. It's called "robustness." You can plug all sorts of things into the PS3 and Sony needs to make sure their PSU is robust enough to handle whatever comes its way. In addition, like most PSUs the one Sony uses probably operates at peak efficiency (and as a result coolest) at a certain percentage of maximum power draw - usually around 50% or so as a rule of thumb - thus there's added incentive to run a PSU at much below it's max rating. In other words, the 3rd party PSU sony is using at roughly 60% capacity is the best choice for them based on the economics, heat, efficiency, robustness, and power. They could have gone with a 200 Watt PSU, but it probably would have run much warmer, be less robust, and more expensive than this option.

gcubed · Oct 30, 2007

blu said:
the 190W figure itself is not BS, but it's a measurement under some load. i was looking for the absolute peak theoretical consumption as estimated by the manufacturer, and that's why i've been referring to the manufacturer's figure all this time. now, apparently there's some safety margin in this fugure which makes this whole effort rather vague.

yup, we werent understanding each other, i was taking what you were trying to say the same way Raist did...

and yes, there is a peak power draw usually when components are initally powered up. The inital power on process is *usually* the most power hungry

1-D_FTW · Oct 30, 2007

Mefisutoferesu said:
More than likely Sony has a PSU that handles more Wattage than needed in the case that they need more Wattage. It's called "robustness." You can plug all sorts of things into the PS3 and Sony needs to make sure their PSU is robust enough to handle whatever comes its way. In addition, like most PSUs the one Sony uses probably operates at peak efficiency (and as a result coolest) at a certain percentage of maximum power draw - usually around 50% or so as a rule of thumb - thus there's added incentive to run a PSU at much below it's max rating. In other words, the 3rd party PSU sony is using at roughly 60% capacity is the best choice for them based on the economics, heat, efficiency, robustness, and power. They could have gone with a 200 Watt PSU, but it probably would have run much warmer, be less robust, and more expensive than this option.

Yes. Just went to the 80 Plus site and checked out some of the power supply graphs there. They all seem to have peak efficiency when they're operating at around 50 percent capacity. So if you doubled your actual needs, you'd get to the point where you're generating the least amount of waste (and all the negative affects that go with heat.)

bigswords · Oct 31, 2007

Valkyr Junkie said:
Why do you keep reporting watts as a unit of voltage?

Forgive me I was very tired.

topsyturvy · Oct 31, 2007

i'll be grabbing the $399 ps3 later on down the road when i see more games to my liking.

PistolGrip · Oct 31, 2007

So 45NM by Spring huh. PS3 Slim announced at E32008, you heard it here first. Bundled with FF13 in Japan.

blu · Oct 31, 2007

thanks for clearing-up the matter with PSU efficiency, guys. i must admit i originally had the wrong idea about that.

Hcoregamer00 · Oct 31, 2007

I am getting the 60 gig PS3 if I could still find them mid November.

These 40 gig model improvements are amazing especially because Sony has been really aggressive in getting the console down in terms of heat production and power consumption. That bodes well for me when I pick up a $200 PS3 "Slim" somewhere down the line.

Hopefully it will be easy to carry around from place to place since the 60 gig will cause back problems.

Like the hat? · Oct 31, 2007

Raist said:

http://www.hardcoreware.net/image.php?src=5480&ts=1172056422
http://www.hardcoreware.net/image.php?src=5475&ts=1172042835

This test (done on a PAL model most likely) is quite complete, too

Code:

[B]Test no.    Description                            Power consumption [Watt][/B]
01.         Standby mode                            1,8
02.         Idle mode                               181,5
03.         Switched of on the backside switch      0
04.         Idle screen saver mode                  179,2
05.         DVD movie                               176,8
06.         CD music                                180,0
07.         Game: Need for speed PS2              202,9
08.         Game: Motor storm PS3                 192,3
09.         Internet                                178,6
10.         JPEG slide show from CD                 175,6
11.         Folding@Home                            187,8

why does it take 180 watts to play an audio cd, but only 176.8 for a dvd movie

Raistlin · Oct 31, 2007

Raist said:

http://www.hardcoreware.net/image.php?src=5480&ts=1172056422
http://www.hardcoreware.net/image.php?src=5475&ts=1172042835

This test (done on a PAL model most likely) is quite complete, too

Code:

[B]Test no.    Description                            Power consumption [Watt][/B]
01.         Standby mode                            1,8
02.         Idle mode                               181,5
03.         Switched of on the backside switch      0
04.         Idle screen saver mode                  179,2
05.         DVD movie                               176,8
06.         CD music                                180,0
07.         Game: Need for speed PS2              202,9
08.         Game: Motor storm PS3                 192,3
09.         Internet                                178,6
10.         JPEG slide show from CD                 175,6
11.         Folding@Home                            187,8

Where it isn't complete is using the worst case scenario of power-hungry USB devices?

TTP · Oct 31, 2007

Raist said:
yup

hmm, nope, afaik

You are wrong. System battery is still there in the old models. It's just not on the motherboard but rather on the metal shielding:

http://content.techrepublic.com.com/2346-10877_11-41891-62.html

as a matter of fact, clock keeps going even if you unplug the old model.

Defuser · Oct 31, 2007

llTll · Oct 31, 2007

TTP said:
You are wrong. System battery is still there in the old models. It's just not on the motherboard but rather on the metal shielding:

http://content.techrepublic.com.com/2346-10877_11-41891-62.html

as a matter of fact, clock keeps going even if you unplug the old model.

omg. u r back

yAy

TTP · Oct 31, 2007

llTll said:
omg. u r back

yAy

llTll · Oct 31, 2007

TTP said:

btw. i sent u pm. nothing much but i guess you didnt get it. ur pm box is full

CrushDance · Oct 31, 2007

TTP said:
You are wrong. System battery is still there in the old models. It's just not on the motherboard but rather on the metal shielding:
as a matter of fact, clock keeps going even if you unplug the old model.

Took you long enough to get back

spyshagg · Oct 31, 2007

blu said:
i don't know where i got your 190W figure from, but if the quoted original PSU rating of 380W is correct, then i highly doubt the original system topped at 190W. the efficiency of a 'high-grade' modern desktop PSUs stands around 80%, so such a PSU rated at 380W would pass down to the consumer ~300W of power. so your suggested 100 watts of power margin are rather, well, dubious. i would expect the original ps3 to be more in line of 250-280W peak consumption.

380w is the PSU maximum rating! not the actual consumption. It means the PSU supports up to 380w of load (minus ~20% because efficiency usually sits at 80% of the maximum rating).
(i know you know this, but there are kids who ignore fact so.)

Next thing you guys will teach me is that if i buy a 1000watts psu for my computer he will automatically consume 1000watts of power. Nonsense.

Doc Evils · Oct 31, 2007

TTP said:
You are wrong. System battery is still there in the old models. It's just not on the motherboard but rather on the metal shielding:

http://content.techrepublic.com.com/2346-10877_11-41891-62.html

as a matter of fact, clock keeps going even if you unplug the old model.

ZOMG TTP.

:lol

Vormund · Oct 31, 2007

Are all PS3's in future going to be using the exact same board as the 40GB? Because I'll have to pick up a 60GB if that's the case. (want BC)

llTll · Oct 31, 2007

Vormund said:
Are all PS3's in future going to be using the exact same board as the 40GB? Because I'll have to pick up a 60GB if that's the case. (want BC)

i would assume yes. at least till the PS3slim comes out.

also, if you really want 60Gig PS3 [ US unit for the BC ]. then i would advise you to buy one before the year end. because you wont find any in Jan

llTll · Oct 31, 2007

Defuser said:
nvm

i was quoting what you said before. but i deleted it and i thought i would give you mercy :lol

Vormund · Oct 31, 2007

llTll said:
i would assume yes. at least till the PS3slim comes out.

also, if you really want 60Gig PS3 [ US unit for the BC ]. then i would advise you to buy one before the year end. because you wont find any in Jan

Looks like I'm going shopping tomorrow then.

TerryLee81 · Oct 31, 2007

I wonder why there are already two different 40GB boards.

My PAL 40GB does not look like the white one in this pic, it looks like the black 60GB one:

blu · Oct 31, 2007

btw, there's a nice post on B3D giving a to-scale visual comparison between the GS-only and GS-free boards.

llTll · Oct 31, 2007

TerryLee81 said:
I wonder why there are already two different 40GB boards.

My PAL 40GB does not look like the white one in this pic, it look's like the black 60GB one:

can you take close images of your Pal 40 Gig unit? like close to the vents, etc etc. how cool the unit? give us a lil more details;.

tanod · Oct 31, 2007

TerryLee81 said:
I wonder why there are already two different 40GB boards.

My PAL 40GB does not look like the white one in this pic, it looks like the black 60GB one:

So, what does the PS3 actually tell you when you put in a PS2 game?

It's probably just a small revision where they changed the placement of connectors. Outside of that, I doubt it's any different inside.

TerryLee81 · Oct 31, 2007

llTll said:
can you take close images of your Pal 40 Gig unit? like close to the vents, etc etc. how cool the unit? give us a lil more details;.

Unfortunately I don't own a digi cam, only my cell phone, but I don't think you would be able to recognize anything.

It runs cooler than the 60GB I had before, although I think that one was broken because the fans got VERY loud while doing nothing.

This one is very quiet, but you can still hear it, it's not as if it's fanless. But it's a big improvement over my old unit.

TerryLee81 · Oct 31, 2007

tanod said:
So, what does the PS3 actually tell you when you put in a PS2 game?

It's probably just a small revision where they changed the placement of connectors. Outside of that, I doubt it's any different inside.

It says "Unsupported data" next to the disc icon.

This doesn't look like a small revision to me, it looks more like a completely new board. Why would they change the placement (and the order) of the connectors? And as some website mentioned, if you have your PS3 vertically placed, the cables are hanging down now more, which looks not that nice, but that's just a detail.

TTP · Oct 31, 2007

TerryLee81 said:
It says "Unsupported data" next to the disc icon.

This doesn't look like a small revision to me, it looks more like a completely new board. Why would they change the placement (and the order) of the connectors? And as some website mentioned, if you have your PS3 vertically placed, the cables are hanging down now more, which looks not that nice, but that's just a detail.

They seem to be easier to reach tho. Didn't try myself so it would be the contrary

Naked Snake · Oct 31, 2007

TerryLee81 said:
I wonder why there are already two different 40GB boards.

My PAL 40GB does not look like the white one in this pic, it looks like the black 60GB one

Do we know what the back of the American 40GB looks like?

Erebus · Oct 31, 2007

Naked Snake said:
Do we know what the back of the American 40GB looks like?

It's identical to the 60GB/80GB models.

TerryLee81 · Oct 31, 2007

DarkUSS said:
It's identical to the 60GB/80GB models.

Are you sure?

That's strange, why produce two different boards which offer the same features?

Gwanatu T · Oct 31, 2007

sakuragi said:
The 40 gig PS3 just got more attractive. quieter + less heat + less power consumption = Win .

Still no BC = lose.

Rolf NB · Oct 31, 2007

spyshagg said:
380w is the PSU maximum rating! not the actual consumption. It means the PSU supports up to 380w of load (minus ~20% because efficiency usually sits at 80% of the maximum rating).
(i know you know this, but there are kids who ignore fact so.)

It's great that you all know this BUT YOU'RE STILL WRONG NO IT DOESN'T RARGH!!!!
The current of the back of the unit is the peak draw. People who care use this value to check if they have their circuit breakers all lined up. Common people on the other hand demonstrate time and again that they are too weak to handle these numbers without extensive layers of gloves, and should best leave them alone.

And now the case in point: my 380W HEC Windmill PSU for the PC is rated 4~5A at 230V, which would indicate a cute little 800W of load capacity according to your fantasy-land procedure. BUT IT DOESN'T actually indicate a load capacity. That's what the 380W is for.

Thank me later.

spyshagg said:
Next thing you guys will teach me is that if i buy a 1000watts psu for my computer he will automatically consume 1000watts of power. Nonsense.

Örks!

duk · Oct 31, 2007

does this mean the initial 40GBs aren't 65nm? hrmmm if so.

i want to buy this puppy day 1.

Raist · Oct 31, 2007

TTP said:
You are wrong. System battery is still there in the old models. It's just not on the motherboard but rather on the metal shielding:

http://content.techrepublic.com.com/2346-10877_11-41891-62.html

as a matter of fact, clock keeps going even if you unplug the old model.

I thought ha was asking about a battery on the motherboard though.

Support NeoGAF

PS3 motherboard pictures (including new 40GB model)

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Member

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Member

Banned

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Banned

Member

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

sex vacation in Guam

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

The 'H' stands for hentai.

Banned

Post Count: 9999

Have a fun! Enjoy!

Member

Banned

Have a fun! Enjoy!

Banned

Banned

Should not be allowed to breed

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Banned

when is my burrito

Member

Member

Have a fun! Enjoy!

Member

Member

Member

Junior Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Similar threads