Support NeoGAF

[Rocksteady33]

Err, I want a PS3 with backwards compatibility but $500 is still so much money.

 

[BloodyYank]

So how often can we expect BC list updates?

 

[Link316]

It's going to start trending down much faster I'd bet, now that the 80 GB model is out there messing with the heads of potential buyers. I just can't for the life of me fathom why they wouldn't wait to bring the 80 gig on the market until the 60 gigs were almost totally cleared out.

the 80GB's $600 so it doesn't really interfere with the 60GB model

 

[Mrbob]

I would be patient if you want a PS3. Sony won't announce the 80GB model at $499.99 until the 60GB models are off the shelf.

Since almost the entire Blu-Ray player hardware base consists of PS3 players, it would be a disaster to not make the PS3 comply with the new standard. What would be the point of movie studios taking the time to have Blu-Ray movie releases take advantage of the new spec, when hardly any players even comply with the standard? Sony has to make PS3 players comply otherwise the spec is pretty pointless.

Firmware.

Update.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

Wow BR 1.1 FUD by the first page. Nice job, GAF :lol

 

[dalyr95]

No problems with my 60GB, played MGS2, DMC3, GoW2 no probs and everything I playtested worked fine, plus every firmware upgrade, it gets better, unlike twice yearly updates

 

[Forsete]

What exactly makes you think this won't happen via firmware updates?

Hope.

 

[Buggy Loop]

So uh, whats the difference between the EE PS2 BC and the 80GB's software emulation of it? Other than a probable shorter list, is it as good? I would keep the FFs, xenosaga, MGS3 & DMC3

 

[Brimstone]

What exactly makes you think this won't happen via firmware updates?

That's a strong possibility and the ideal solution because almost the entire user base complies with the standard then. Blu-Ray PiP will be substantially more powerful than HD-DVD PiP spec wise.

 

[spwolf]

So wait, are you telling me that the price drop wasn't really a price drop at all? Seems like it was more of a clearance price to get the 60gb systems off there hands, at which time you'll only be able to buy the 80gb's at $600. That's so damn illogical that I have to be misunderstanding this, right?

it was price drop for 60 GB models that are being phased out.... What is so illogical about it? People are paying $100 less for it than 1 month ago, so price was certainly dropped.

80 GB has packed in game as well, which 60 GB did not have.

 

[Lain]

So how often can we expect BC list updates?

After each firmware update (if they remember to update the BC website to show it, that is =p), so going from the updates we had until now, about once a month (but this will slow down in time).

 

[Maxwell House]

Wonder if the new US SKU has the 65nm Cell?

65nm? I don't believe PS3 is supposed to move to a 65nm Cell for a while (at least half a year).

 

[spwolf]

So uh, whats the difference between the EE PS2 BC and the 80GB's software emulation of it? Other than a probable shorter list, is it as good? I would keep the FFs, xenosaga, MGS3 & DMC3

i dont think there is an difference...

 

[Vyse The Legend]

So uh, whats the difference between the EE PS2 BC and the 80GB's software emulation of it? Other than a probable shorter list, is it as good? I would keep the FFs, xenosaga, MGS3 & DMC3

Yeah, just lower compatibility.

 

[Elios83]

65nm? I don't believe PS3 is supposed to move to a 65nm Cell for a while (at least half a year).

Cell 65nm has been in production since... March?

 

[Maxwell House]

Cell 65nm has been in production since... March?

Not for the PS3. The one fab line IBM has that is producing 65 nm Cells are producing them for IBM Cell servers only. There was a recent article on the timeline for 65nm cells in PS3 and it is a whiles away (mid-late 2008 if I remember correct).

 

[~Kinggi~]

seriously, a ridiculously dumb move by Sony with this BC fiasco. They should have just kept it in there. Now all they are doing is pissing the people off who plan to eventually get the system when it actually gets some system seller games. I definitely do not see BC software ever reaching 100%.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

65nm? I don't believe PS3 is supposed to move to a 65nm Cell for a while (at least half a year).

That's odd, I was under the impression that Sony had already moved to production of 65nm Cell.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20070131/127184/

 

[Vyse The Legend]

seriously, a ridiculously dumb move by Sony with this BC fiasco. They should have just kept it in there. Now all they are doing is pissing the people off who plan to eventually get the system when it actually gets some system seller games. I definitely do not see BC software ever reaching 100%.

Well, I think you are overestimating the number of people who care, honestly. Some really don't, at all, and casuals may be too clueless to care.

 

[Mmmkay]

Not for the PS3. The one fab line IBM has that is producing 65 nm Cells are producing them for IBM Cell servers only. There was a recent article on the timeline for 65nm cells in PS3 and it is a whiles away (mid-late 2008 if I remember correct).

Try, oh I dunno, actually citing things instead of relying on that spectacular memory of yours.

 

[~Kinggi~]

Well, I think you are overestimating the number of people who care, honestly. Some really don't, at all, and casuals may be too clueless to care.

yeah well im sure the majority at gaf care. I could give a crap if 75% of the casuals dont care.

 

[Zombie James]

seriously, a ridiculously dumb move by Sony with this BC fiasco. They should have just kept it in there. Now all they are doing is pissing the people off who plan to eventually get the system when it actually gets some system seller games. I definitely do not see BC software ever reaching 100%.

1. Check the European BC list, you'll be surprised.
2. Hardware emulation isn't 100% either.
3. PSX games have been using software emulation from the start.
4. They said they were going to remove the EE/GS chip(s) before the PS3 even launched, don't act so shocked.

 

[Vyse The Legend]

yeah well im sure the majority at gaf care. I could give a crap if 75% of the casuals dont care.

GAF is comprised of like less than .001% of the people who will buy the PS3 over its life-span. It doesn't matter if such a small number of people are generally upset.

 

[Elios83]

Not for the PS3. The one fab line IBM has that is producing 65 nm Cells are producing them for IBM Cell servers only. There was a recent article on the timeline for 65nm cells in PS3 and it is a whiles away (mid-late 2008 if I remember correct).

Seems really unlikely and makes no sense to me considering how hard they're trying to bring their costs down as quickly as possible. Source?
Moreover Sony stated just two weeks ago that they're aiming to have a PS3 with both Cell and RSX at 65nm by the end of the fiscal year (March 2008).
I wouldn't be surprised if the 80GB model has the 65nm Cell but we'll probably find out that as soon as some tech website takes a look at what's inside the new model.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Not for the PS3. The one fab line IBM has that is producing 65 nm Cells are producing them for IBM Cell servers only. There was a recent article on the timeline for 65nm cells in PS3 and it is a whiles away (mid-late 2008 if I remember correct).

I provided a source that suggests that 65nm Cell is already in production. Care to provide a source for your claim?

 

[~Kinggi~]

GAF is comprised of like less than .001% of the people who will buy the PS3 over its life-span. It doesn't matter if such a small number of people are generally upset.

What exactly is your point here? You trying to make excuses based off of popularity of the feature? It still sucks, and Sony should have done better.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

What exactly is your point here? You trying to make excuses based off of popularity of the feature? It still sucks, and Sony should have done better.

Give me a break. Sony should have done better than what, the solid, continuously updated and ridiculously well documented software BC effort that is currently in place? Obviously keeping it in was not an option if the company desires to ever reach profitability and subsequently lower prices of entry for the consumers, so the company is doing the second best thing, and is actually doing a good job at it. Would you prefer it if the system remained unprofitable and at a price point too high for consumers to even consider?

 

[antiloop]

1. Check the European BC list, you'll be surprised.
2. Hardware emulation isn't 100% either.
3. PSX games have been using software emulation from the start.
4. They said they were going to remove the EE/GS chip(s) before the PS3 even launched, don't act so shocked.

Yea.

There is still time to buy one with H/W BC too.

 

[PistolGrip]

It'll be interesting to see how long the supply holds out here in the states. PSP has had some recent supply issues as well as they begin to clear the channel.

Perhaps the PSP lite will hit the market before expected.

 

[Lain]

What exactly is your point here? You trying to make excuses based off of popularity of the feature? It still sucks, and Sony should have done better.

As an european, I bitched alot when we heard that PAL PS3 would only have software emulation.
Now, while there are still problems with not working titles or working titles with minor/major glitches, it really is a stretch to bitch at Sony for how they are working on the BC emulation seeing how many titles work and work well.
They can do better, and reminding them is cool, but it doesn't suck at all and Sony is working pretty well about it.

 

[Vyse The Legend]

What exactly is your point here? You trying to make excuses based off of popularity of the feature? It still sucks, and Sony should have done better.

Nope, my point is that, if you honestly cared enough about this feature, you would have bought a PS3 60gb after the news that it was being phased out surfaced.

By the way, the software compatibility is far from gimped, as you seem to believe.

 

[~Kinggi~]

Give me a break. Sony should have done better than what, the solid, continuously updated and ridiculously well documented software BC effort that is currently in place? Obviously keeping it in was not an option if the company desires to ever reach profitability and subsequently lower prices of entry for the consumers, so the company is doing the second best thing, and is actually doing a good job at it. Would you prefer it if the system remained unprofitable and at a price point too high for consumers to even consider?

The EE was incredibly cheap. They are keeping it 599 even with the gimped hardware, that doesnt seem like they are doing much to consider the 'too high' price point. Again, dont know why you are defending sony, the decision sucks in the end for the gamers. And their well documented list surprisingly is missing a few games, with apparent problems being noted for many of the high profile ones.

 

[PistolGrip]

I provided a source that suggests that 65nm Cell is already in production. Care to provide a source for your claim?

a feel a Major Nelson quote coming up.

The EE was incredibly cheap. They are keeping it 599 even with the gimped hardware, that doesnt seem like they are doing much to consider the 'too high' price point. Again, dont know why you are defending sony, the decision sucks in the end for the gamers. And their well documented list surprisingly is missing a few games, with apparent problems being noted for many of the high profile ones.

one is cheap, yes. Try 10 million of them. This is good for gamers because it allows for a decrease in price which allows more gamers to join in, which allows for more support, which allows for gaming companies continuing to invest in this industry. Take off those hater goggles.

They are not keepin it at $599. First the 80Gb is cheaper to make, second they need to clear out 60Gb versions. Doesn't that tell you anything? The fact that it comes bundled with a game should at least hint that $599 will not be the final price.

 

[Mmmkay]

Seems really unlikely and makes no sense to me considering how hard they're trying to bring their costs down as quickly as possible. Source?
Moreover Sony stated just two weeks ago that they're aiming to have a PS3 with both Cell and RSX at 65nm by the end of the fiscal year (March 2008).
I wouldn't be surprised if the 80GB model has the 65nm Cell but we'll probably find out that as soon as some tech website takes a look at what's inside the new model.

The specific comment by Oneda about Cell transition was:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/42544

And your third question, when the 65 nanometer version would be in the [channel], I couldn’t exactly tell the timing at this moment, but of course within the peak season. That I could say.

Peak season being indicated as between November and December. So it's eye raisingly coincidental that the 60GB inventory will be depleted [as announced in the PR] just as Sony expects 65nm units in the channel. It's not such a shock to imagine both Sony and Microsoft planning two pronged price changes in their run up to the holidays.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

a feel a Major Nelson quote coming up.

I almost included such a reference in my post, but I figured I'd give the guy the benefit of a doubt. Maybe he does have a solid source.

And kinggi, why are you seemingly arguing against the documentation of the BC effort when you in the same sentence go on to verify the validity of my comment?

 

[EverSoTrendy]

They really need a REAL price drop, or they are going to be completely raped by the Wii/X360 this holiday season.

 

[~Kinggi~]

I almost included such a reference in my post, but I figured I'd give the guy the benefit of a doubt. Maybe he does have a solid source.

And kinggi, why are you seemingly arguing against the documentation of the BC effort when you in the same sentence go on to verify the validity of my comment?

It was an assumption that you were referring to the "quality" of the BC of the ps3 as opposed to the quality of their "listings", which i could care less about. Them having an extensive listing of the issues doesnt exactly improve the situation. And that is what sony needs to do better.

 

[KachoMakura]

Damn they've got to be making a pretty substantial profit off these units by now. When are they expecting to turn an overall profit for the division?

 

[PistolGrip]

Damn they've got to be making a pretty substantial profit off these units by now. When are they expecting to turn an overall profit for the division?

huh? They expect to be at break even stage with the PS3 by end of fiscal year (march 2008).

 

[le.phat]

Err, I want a PS3 with backwards compatibility but $500 is still so much money.

alot of people are under the impression that the "newer" ps3's somehow lack BC. I have a european ps3, using software emulation, and have yet to experience any problems in terms of backward playability in my 40+ ps2 game library.

 

[Elios83]

alot of people are under the impression that the "newer" ps3's somehow lack BC. I have a european ps3, using software emulation, and have yet to experience any problems in terms of backward playability in my 40+ ps2 game library.

Indeed I have 50+ PS2 games and 40 of them run perfectly, right now only 2 of them (Onimusha and Onimusha2) don't work at all and a few have problems ( FMV glitches and bad frame rates mainly).
The software BC is pretty good in the current state, not perfect but good nevertheless.

 

[Maxwell House]

I provided a source that suggests that 65nm Cell is already in production. Care to provide a source for your claim?

Well, for one:

I think I need to weigh in on this. First off, I worked for IBM in their East Fiskill 300mm fab where the Cell was designed and is produced. There are some misconceptions that I'd like to clear up. I'm going to start off with some definitions:

Wafer: this is a circular disk(300mm diameter in this case) of silicon and is the starting point for all semiconductors.
Semiconductor = chip (A CPU is a chip, but not all chips are CPUs)
Die: this is a location on the wafer that will eventually be cut into a chip.
90nm / 65nm: This is the size of the smallest features in the chip. This includes the gates, wires, etc.
Foundry: a semiconductor fab that produces chips developed by a third party.

Ok, now that we've got some basic definitions in place let me try to clear some things up. Transitioning from 90nm to 65nm is EXPENSIVE. It requires an almost complete chip redesign. New chip designs have a miserable yield percentage, like less that 5%. It takes 3 to 6 months to achieve production level yields(40%+). Speaking of yields, 65nm will typically have LOWER yields than 90nm. Yes. LOWER. Yield percentage is the number of working chips divided by the total number of chips produced. The smaller the features the greater the likelihood of the chip not working. HOWEVER, since the die size is smaller because the features are smaller, there are more dies/wafer. Despite lower yields, each wafer will typically produce more working chips. That's why it's 'cheaper'. However, a smaller chip means that it won't work on the current motherboard. The pin-outs are different. Changing the size of any chip on the board requires a board redesign = more expense. Depending on which chip is being changed, the extent of the redesign differs. Removing the EE and using software emulation is a relatively easy modification. Since the Cell is the CPU, changes to its pin-out will require an almost complete redesign.

Because of all of this, the first 65nm Cells will be in the IBM servers that use them. They'll have a faster clock too, I bet.

No PS3 will have a 65nm Cell until there are NO 90nm available and I bet they're still producing them. As for a slim ps3: that's when you'll know you've got a 65nm chip.

Now a little bit about IBM's Fab, there's only one production 'line', but with the capacity for probably 30+ different chip designs, depending on the volume required. The upper level management decides how many wafers will be dedicated to each chip design based on production commitments and yield percentages.
Here's a simplified version of how it works, and I'll use a historical case. (Specific numbers are made up, but the story is pretty close to true)

Apple tells IBM, we want 25,000 G5 chips in 3 months, another 75,000 chips by 6 months and 250,000 chips by 12 months. IBM says, well we've just signed a large contract with Nvidia to produce two chips and its taking a lot of our available capacity. We'll need 30% yield rate within 9 months to meet your request. Apple: Can you do it? IBM: We think so...
Time passes... (these yield rates are accurate +-a month or two)
3 months: G5 has ~3% yield rate. IBM didn't meet its target.
6 months: G5 has ~4% yield rate. IBM wasn't even close to target.
9 months: G5 has ~12% yield rate and definitely couldn't meet the 12month target even if it solely focused on the G5 chips which it couldn't because it was already devoting too much capacity and barely meeting commitments for its other foundry chips.
not too long after: Apple switches to Intel...
And that's why G5 Macs weren't around for very long

http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=85151&page=2

I have the link to a more official source on this. One second, I will find it.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

I have the link to a more official source on this. One second, I will find it.

I'd certainly hope so. You understand that Sony has its own 65nm production line, right?

 

[Maxwell House]

Ok, I guess this is the article I remember. It is from July 30, 2007, so just a few days ago:

Sony Aims for PS3 Break-Even This Year

By Kris Graft Print | Send to a friend | Email the editor

Sony currently incurs an estimated $200 loss on every PlayStation 3 sold, but an exec from the firm said Thursday that loss could be eliminated this fiscal year.
During a conference call Sony executive VP Nobuyuki Oneda said the firm may be able to break even on PS3 hardware this fiscal year, which ends in March 2008.

He said that the main cost-downs would have to occur in the Cell processor, RSX graphics chip and Blu-ray optical components.

“The removal of the negative margin will be when all of these factors have come out. Maybe, marginally, we could achieve this during this year,” Oneda told a Citigroup Securities analyst during a Q&A session. Oneda still couldn’t specify exactly when this break-even point may happen.

“For the negative margin to go away, the big trigger would be the cost-down in the Cell and RSX semiconductors. They are the key, and also optical pick-up is another factor, significantly,” he said.

Oneda confirmed that Sony is working on transitioning the PS3’s chips from 90nm to 65nm, which would reduce costs significantly. He said the Cell would be the first PS3 chip to make the migration, followed by the RSX chip.

Game console makers typically sell hardware at a loss, and make up for this through software sales. Nintendo, however, has made it a point to sell its hardware at a profit.

I have read threads on other forums stating that the 65nm Cells are for IBM servers only at this point and that PS3 65nm Cell parts aren't supposed to be incorporated until 2008. This article at least confirms that PS3s aren't using 65nm Cells yet.

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6573&Itemid=2

 

[Mmmkay]

Ok, I guess this is the article I remember. It is from July 30, 2007, so just a few days ago:

Here's a better link:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7319063&postcount=84

 

[Elios83]

Ok, I guess this is the article I remember. It is from July 30, 2007, so just a few days ago:


I have read threads on other forums stating that the 65nm Cells are for IBM servers only at this point and that PS3 65nm Cell parts aren't supposed to be incorporated until 2008. This article at least confirms that PS3s aren't using 65nm Cells yet.

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6573&Itemid=2

So your source in the end is an opinion on a message board?

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Ok, so you're no longer disputing that 65nm Cell is currently in production?

 

[Maxwell House]

I'd certainly hope so. You understand that Sony has its own 65nm production line, right?

I believe the only 65nm Cells being manufactured right now are by IBM, and by one fab line. Maybe Sony's line isn't ready yet?

 

[Maxwell House]

Ok, so you're no longer disputing that 65nm Cell is currently in production?

No, I never disputed that. I said that the ones that are being made are being used only in IBM Servers.

 

[roxya]

I really wonder why you lot are so interested in a 65nm chip. Going 'green'?