New 80GB PS3 may be sporting 65nm RSX to match 65nm Cell

by Ross Miller { Aug 25th 2008 at 6:40PM }

We don't know for sure if Sony downsized the PlayStation 3's RSX graphics chip to 65nm, matching the already 65nm Cell processor, but we might have some anecdotal evidence from an external source. A forum poster at slickdeals used a Kill-a-watt device to check the power consumption of the 40GB and 80GB models during idle phase, while spinning a DVD and with Metal Gear Solid 4 in the drive, and found a 12-20 watt difference favoring the new 80GB.

It's not enough to say Sony has finally upgraded its RSX graphics chip, but it is interesting to ponder. Now, can someone end this speculation by voiding their 80GB's warranty and snapping a photo of the guts?

[Via Engadget]

Tags: 65nm, Cell, RSX, sce, scea, sony

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

syrik zero @ Aug 25th 2008 6:47PM

Is this the 80gb that came in the NA MGS4 Bundle? I'm pretty often confused... If it is that one I own it, but don't know what's in it and I won't crack mine open. Also my PS3 was as clean as the one in the picture for 5 minutes? It's a powerful dust magnet! I'll clean all my systems and TV and in less than 30 minutes the PS will have weird dust marks again while everything else is still clean. Even my glossy black LCD TV.

Hyams @ Aug 25th 2008 7:06PM

It's the new 'core' 80GB they're talking about, not the MGS4 limited edition one.

syrik zero @ Aug 25th 2008 7:14PM

Alright, thanks. What does this matter anyway? The people with a newer chip will save a little little bit of money on their electricity bill?

gir @ Aug 25th 2008 6:52PM

I had no idea!

Kspraydad @ Aug 25th 2008 6:57PM

Still didn't fix the 'chop? Thats a Xbox 360 chip isn't it?

Arnon @ Aug 25th 2008 7:17PM

Rofl yes.. yes it is O_o

please @ Sep 2nd 2008 4:54PM

Wish the PS3 had gone with the 8800 that was out before the PS3 came out. 1080p standard would have been great

colinbell @ Aug 25th 2008 7:27PM

Yes, but dont forget that would have meant a bigger 256-bit bus, more video RAM, much more cooling, etc. Both cost and size contraints woould rule it out.
And seriously, when the much-abused RSX can churn out graphics of the level of Killzone 2, Uncharted, MGS4, GT5, does it really matter?

Jeff @ Aug 25th 2008 7:36PM

Hell yes it matters. It can turn out those games, but not at 1080p, and sure as hell not at 60 FPS. Which is sad, because relatively cheap, modern (as of the ps3's release) hardware could do it easily with optimization.

Vidikron (FU) @ Aug 25th 2008 8:49PM

I don't know what the RSX chips runs at, but putting an 8800 in there likely would have also added a tremendous amount of heat. Those chips run near 100C going full bore with stock cooling. It was likely just too late in the game to make that sort of change.

why not the LS2LS7? @ Aug 25th 2008 8:51PM

Yeah, because the PS3 didn't cost enough at launch. Better to drop in a chip from a (then) $400 video card too.

SpikeDelight @ Aug 25th 2008 7:04PM

That's not a very nice thing to ask someone to do.

Mystic @ Aug 25th 2008 7:16PM

Will that make the games funner to play? I hope so.

syrik zero @ Aug 25th 2008 7:23PM

Haha, changing chips always makes games more "funner"

Jakka(Naked Peach Brigade) @ Aug 25th 2008 7:23PM

Does anybody need that new 65nm chip? Considering Sony's financial situation(aka losing on every PS3 sold), I think they have bigger problems than getting their baby some new chips.

Christopher Grant @ Aug 25th 2008 7:40PM

I can't tell if you're being serious or facetious -- the 65nm chips are a MAJOR component of the cost reduction on units like this. Get the 65nm chip in there and the chips are cheaper to produce, easier to cool (less spent on cooling systems) and more reliable.

Mr Khan @ Aug 25th 2008 7:45PM

I thought they had minimized or negated the hardware losses?

Or am i thinking of the 360?

why not the LS2LS7? @ Aug 25th 2008 8:55PM

Jakka, if you don't work at Sony you don't really know how much they pay to make a PS3.

Second, reducing the chip size increases yield, which makes the cheap cheaper, helping the cost of making a PS3.

Reducing the power usage also makes it possible to decrease the cost of the power supply (since it can be smaller) and the cooling solution. Save enough power and you can even make the unit smaller which saves money on plastics and other parts and reduces shipping costs.

You sure find every way possible to negatively spin Sony stuff. Even worse when you start making conjectures, you always make the most negative ones possible.

Jakka(Naked Peach Brigade) @ Aug 26th 2008 7:29AM

Oh, I didn't know that. For all I know, slimming something down usually makes it more expensive.

strang @ Aug 25th 2008 7:26PM

This would have mattered more for a Xbox 360 since they get relatively hotter. On a PS3 that is already adequately cooled I don't really see much improvement. Although cost savings will be greater as the chip manufacturing will cost less.

RSX is a nice chip. The 8800 would probably be too hot.

Foetoid @ Aug 25th 2008 8:02PM

Not too hot for the 360?. The 360 is powerered by a DirectX 10 compatible ATI R600, which is comparable to an 8800gt. Then again, we all know what putting in such a powerful graphics chip did for the 360.

Blooper62 @ Aug 25th 2008 8:36PM

The 360 is just based on the R600 it is underclocked to be about as powerful as a 1900XT and the PS3 is a underclocked 7800GTX

why not the LS2LS7? @ Aug 25th 2008 8:56PM

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/24/xbox-360-cant-run-directx-10-confirms-ati/

Foetoid:
360 isn't DirectX 10 capable.

anonim1979 @ Aug 25th 2008 9:52PM

Of course it isn't *100% DX10 card.
Only mostly DX10 card

It came out BEFORE final DX10 specyfication.

AND is optimized and designed specificaly to console - 10MB extra DRAM (nothing like this on PCs ) etc. it is also central "HUB" of X360.

In PS3 on other hand sits PC like RSX - GPU in PS3 is only slightly upgraded midrange GF7600GT taken from PC at the last moment when it came to light that projected 2xCell PS3 with no GPU would mighty su*** compared to X360.
128bit 8ROP 500Mhz 256MB DDR3.
Only pixel shaders were doubled from 12 to 24.

Thats why custom built GPU in X360 being newer technology (nearly DX10 card) beats it in most cases.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=202449

BIGGEN (LIVE-PSN: BIGGEN1103) @ Aug 25th 2008 8:15PM

woopty doooo!

Nugent @ Aug 25th 2008 8:39PM

@Jakka: Reducing chip size reduces the cost of the chip. So getting new chips for the PS3 is part of the plan for making PS3s not sell at a loss.

Sony doesn't shrink chips to benefit the environment by the reduced energy consumption. They don't do it to benefit consumers by reducing your electric bill. They do it to make more money for themselves.

Dwag @ Aug 25th 2008 8:51PM

I hope the new 160GB includes this so I can sell my 40GB and get the lastest revisioned ps3.

Mana37 @ Aug 25th 2008 9:06PM

Okay, okay is the 65nm RSX chip better for the graphics or not?
Should I buy the new "Core" pack or seek out the MGS Bundle??

School Me!!!

Nate @ Aug 26th 2008 12:15AM

The MGS bundle is the only thing currently on the market that is backwards compatible, plus you get a dualshock, 80 gig hard drive, and MGS4.... well well worth the prie IF you can find one.

CubeGuy @ Aug 25th 2008 11:16PM

But will it play PS2 games?

mocax @ Aug 26th 2008 12:05AM

Looks like I will have to put off getting a PS3 until Sony decides to stop updating the machine every 6 months

I don't have a PS3 collection fetish.

flanker22 @ Aug 26th 2008 1:59AM

just found it funny, that gpu looked awfully familiar...

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/04/x360Gpu.jpg

SimbaDogg @ Aug 26th 2008 2:45AM

User Generated Power Consumption Tests

80GB PS3 Core -

* XMB idle - 111.9 watts
* DVD playback - 126.0 watts
* Game (MGS4) - 130.0 watts

40GB PS3 Core -

* XMB idle - 125.8 watts
* DVD playback - 141.2 watts
* Game (MGS4) - 155.2 watts

80GB PS3 MGS4 Bundle -

* XMB idle - 180 watts
* Bluray Playback - 182 watts
* DVD playback - 197 watts
* Game (MGS4) - 200 watts

Stats

80GB Core vs. 40GB Core

* XMB idle - 11% Lower
* DVD playback - 10.8% Lower
* Game (MGS4) - 16.2% Lower

80GB Core vs. 80GB MGS4 Bundle

* XMB idle - 37.8% Lower
* DVD playback - 36% Lower
* Game (MGS4) - 35% Lower

very intesting numbers...i wonder how much power my old ass launch 60 GB would suck up.