Heh... Xbox who?

I find it funny that the late-to-the-game Sony has slashed component cost and size as far as they have in the little time they' ve been given much further than Microsoft. I should' ve expected it. These are the people that created the PS2. It started out the size of a dictionary, and wound up slightly thicker than a small magazine.

SAN FRANCISCO — At an ISSCC session yesterday afternoon, IBM announced details of a smaller, lower-power version of the Cell BE processor that powers Sony' s PlayStation 3. The Cell BE is currently fabricated on IBM' s 65nm SOI process, but IBM will soon move the console chip onto the company' s much-ballyhooed, next-generation 45nm high-k process.

The 45nm Cell will use about 40 percent less power than its 65nm predecessor, and its die area will be reduced by 34 percent. The greatly reduced power budget will cut down on the amount of active cooling required by the console, which in turn will make it cheaper to produce and more reliable (this means fewer warrantied returns). Also affecting Sony' s per-unit cost is the reduction in overall die size. A smaller die means a smaller, cheaper package; it also means that yields will be better and that each chip will cost less overall.

All of these chip- and unit-level savings may or may not get passed on to gamers in the form of price cuts any time soon. It all depends on whether Sony wants to boost its margins and show a profit in its gaming unit, or attract new gamers to the console by lowering the price. Eventually, the cost savings will get passed on to users; it' s just a question of when.

Speaking of Cell and sales, the presentation suggests that, despite IBM' s promise that Cell could see widespread adoption outside of the console realm, Sony is still far and away IBM' s main customer of Cell. Specifically, IBM states the following in the paper digest: " To guarantee the proper operation of existing gaming software, the exact cycle-by-cycle machine behavior, including operating frequency, must be preserved."

In other words, IBM' s Cell shrink was made with Sony in mind; the chipmaker didn' t take advantage of the shrink to make any performance-enhancing tweaks, opting instead to preserve the exact performance characteristics of the 65nm version, which itself preserved the performance characteristics of the 90nm version.

Now, I' ll admit that a member of Intel' s Itanium team is the person who highlighted this part of the paper for me, but I still think he has a point. This process shrink is all about making cheaper PlayStation 3' s, with IBM' s narrow but profitable Cell-based blade business taking a back seat to the needs of the volume console market. So IBM may have suckered Sony into buying a supercomputing coprocessor disguised as a gaming chip, but it looks like Sony could get the last laugh.

Edit: Whoops, how ' bout I link this article?

Awwww, I feel all out of date with my launch model now .

Jk

It is surprising how fast Sony has cut costs, even considering the cost cutting they did with the ps2. After all, the ps2 took quite a while to get down to $250, whereas the ps3 has gone from costing the company over $800 at launch to under $400 in just over a year.

Now we just have to see how much they can cut the cost on their other components. $300 ps3' s with rumble and Home, at christmas would be a very interesting sight to see. Especially considering how many good games it has coming out, especially in the fall.

edit - to add paragraphing

It is surprising how fast Sony has cut costs, even considering the cost cutting they did with the ps2. After all, the ps2 took quite a while to get down to $250, whereas the ps3 has gone from costing the company over $800 at launch to under $400 in just over a year.

It' s not really, once you think about it.

The PS2 took quite a while to get down to $250, yes, but in the meantime, Sony was enjoying boatloads of profit, they started making profit off of every unit sold a little over a year after release, if I remember correctly, and the component cost/manufacturing price continued on a sharp decrease from there on out (which is why they' re still making amazing sales on 8 year old hardware. Combined with a huge library, they can turn it out far cheaper than what they' re asking for the machine).

t' s not really, once you think about it.

The PS2 took quite a while to get down to $250, yes, but in the meantime, Sony was enjoying boatloads of profit, they started making profit off of every unit sold a little over a year after release, if I remember correctly, and the component cost/manufacturing price continued on a sharp decrease from there on out (which is why they' re still making amazing sales on 8 year old hardware. Combined with a huge library, they can turn it out far cheaper than what they' re asking for the machine).

Very true, I was thinking of the profit aspect of it myself when I was writing the post. I suppose the main reason the ps2 didn' t drop in price as fast as the ps3 is simply because it didn' t need to. It was still far and away more succesful than the xbox and the GCN, and it matched their price pretty much throughout the years. Whereas the ps3 started at a higher price point, and has had to compete with consoles that are cheaper and in the 360' s case, just as capable.

Which is why I think Sony' s going to do so well this generation.

It' s not like last gen where they were handed everything on a silver platter. Or like Microsoft, who had a very successful run, and AAA titles releasing in launch year.

In this case, Sony finally has to work for the top slot, and to do that they need to give the consumer what he or she wants. It' s a good place for them to be in, because it puts us as consumers in a good place to be.

Thats great,but I still want sony/nintendo to pay for our warranty,we shouldnt have to pay for it in a electronic store.

MS had to have RROD to fix theirs,but that should be free for every console.

Neither have a free 30-90 day warranty?

(Yes, I know 30 sucks. 90' s closer to humane)

Thats great,but I still want sony/nintendo to pay for our warranty,we shouldnt have to pay for it in a electronic store.

MS had to have RROD to fix theirs,but that should be free for every console.

I do agree that consoles should have longer warranty periods. At least in the first few years of their life cycle when they cost so much. For example, having a ps2 break now wouldn' t be that big a deal, considering you can go grab a brand new one for $120. However, if it had broken 5 or 6 years ago, it would be a pain in the ass to go spend $300 or more.

I' m not sure how long the ps3 warranty is, but I' m sure it is no more than 90 days. I for one would be absolutely livid if my $650 launch model broke on me 4 or 5 months after I bought it. Luckily they are built to last it would seem, and I bought a in store warranty anyways.

As a side note. Anyone who buys Rock Band should get an in store warranty from the likes of Best Buy, Circuit City, or Future Shop. So far I' ve had 1 guitar strum bar go to complete hell(I took it apart and fixed it, but that only lasted two weeks). As well as my drum stick breaking in a week, followed by a drum pad cracking right down the middle, followed by a different drum pad ceasing to register being hit.

I have the second generation drum kit and guitar now which seem beefed up a bit so hopefully these will last more than a month before crapping out on me.