Cell Hits 45nm, PS3 Price Drop Likely to Follow

Septimus writes "At this weeks ISSCC, IBM announced that the Cell CPU used in the PlayStation 3 will soon make the transition to IBM's next-gen 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.'"

More SPUs?

[zackhugh]

This would be a great thing if they allow PS3/Linux users to access 7 of 8 SPUs instead of only six.

Otherwise, it's nice but not that big a deal...

Matches rumors

[orclevegam]

This fits in well with the rumors of a slim version of the PS3 in the works. See here [slashgear.com] for more details.

The last couple of paragraphs are the best

[jandrese]

The article mentions the cost savings to Sony (maybe they'll be passed on to the consumer...two or three years from now), but the real kicker is at the bottom where IBM apparently had to maintain cycle compatibility with the old chip to make sure they don't break any games. They didn't use the die shrink to optimize or enhance any parts of the chip like you normally would. The supercomputer folks might end up losing out a bit in an effort to keep the game console folks happy.

It would be really great, IF

[wowbagger]

It would be really great that they are moving to a smaller process, (/me takes deep breath)

IF THEY WOULD SELL YOU THE DAMN THINGS!

Where I work, we approached them to try to buy Cell processors for our equipment: the SPUs would make dandy DSP replacements, and we really could use the closer coupling of the processors instead of having a bunch of DSPs and spending all our time schlepping data around.

IBM wouldn't sell us any modules, wouldn't let us design our own CPU board, nothing. They seem supremely uninterested in actually getting these out into the hands of anybody other than their own divisions and Sony.

HEY IBM! How about you guys release these in a MicroTCA formfactor, or as a module that can be integrated into a MicroTCA?

Does that make for a slimmer ps3?

[jmichaelg]

If' they're dropping cooling components due to lower heat output, I wonder if that means this picture is for real. [pcworld.com]

Re:Also affecting Sony's per-unit cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Software emulation too, now.

Best Buy has already stopped selling the 80GB PS3 - the remaining 40GB PS3 has no PS2 software emulation.

They've stopped selling the 80GB version as well - if you find it in a store, that's remaining stock. They won't be replacing it, either.

So if you want a PS3 with PS2 support, you're stuck blowing $500. The new, cheaper PS3s won't have it.

Not that it really matters in any case - the Xbox 360 has proven to be effectively a superior console. Reviews are starting to come in comparing Devil May Cry 4 on the Xbox 360 and PS3, and the consensus is all that the Xbox 360 version is superior - and doesn't have that minor 20-minute startup cost required to bring in-game load times to parity with the Xbox 360. Then there's developers announcing that they're committed to not gimping the Xbox 360 version of multi-console releases to match the PS3 version.

Sony better get the cheaper PS3s out soon - the PS3 is in BAD shape. Sony killing backwards compatibility is confusing, but whatever. They are.

Isn't the blue laser the biggest cost?

[statemachine]

I remember the biggest problem with the PS3's availability and cost was the blue laser (as it has low yields and is expensive to make). Sony was already taking a hit on cost, since a stand-alone Blu Ray player in November actually cost about the same or more.

It's nice that the cell processor is lowering in cost, but I'm not sure that it ever was a significant enough percentage of the unit cost to see a drop of more then a few tens of dollars.

Re:Effect on cost

[truthsearch]

Standard desktop OSs and applications do not yet really take much advantage of parallel processing. Once you get past 2 or 4 CPUs/cores there won't be any drastic speed improvements until individual applications are written for parallel processing.

Re:Effect on cost

[Bill_the_Engineer]

There is a difference between being able to PRODUCE processors and being able to SUPPLY the cell processors. There have been more than a few occasions where Macintosh sales were hurt from CPU shortages.

With Sony and Microsoft buying these cell processors to supply a growing game console market, would Apple even have a chance?

Intel scored huge points with their ability to guaranty enough chips are available, and they sealed the deal by demonstrating their ability to customize the Core 2 Duo to meet product requirements. On the other hand, IBM couldn't even keep Apple happily supplied with G5s...

Not to mention, being a member of the x86 family has its advantages: Software, OS options, cheaper prices, competing suppliers (That are large enough)...

"Price drop unlikely" does not follow.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Last I heard, Sony was still losing a ton of money on every PS3 they sold. So even if this upgrade makes it significantly cheaper to manufacture PS3s, I don't see why that would lead to a drop in retail price.

If anything, I'd guess Sony wants to keep the PS3 at its current price, now that they've basically won the next-gen DVD skirmish. Plenty of people who want Blu-Ray players probably already see the PS3 as a good choice (just like I bought a PS2 to play DVDs back in the days of yore).

Cell PC, Already?

[Doc Ruby]

The PS3 is interesting because it's so much power in such a cheap box, but it's subsidized by Sony. I think Sony will be lowering prices less while reducing the subsidy more.

But where are the Cell PCs already? The PS3 is cute, but it's locked down with a Sony hypervisor, it's got no PCI or other expansion, only a single SATA connector, and a puny 512MB hardwired RAM (its Cell can rip through 512MB, peforming 64bit floating point math on it all, in under 0.0025s). Its RSX video chip is locked out from Linux, so no HW acceleration (and no addon videocard is possible).

IBM is now cranking out these chips. It lost Apple, its biggest CPU (PPC) customer, to Intel. Where's a PC built on a Cell that includes PCI-e, expandible XDR RAM, Gb-e networking, and a more open nVidia graphics card (or two)? Since the Cell is cheap due to its higher yields, a $1000 Cell PC could make a $1000 Intel PC (Mac or Windows/Linux/etc) look like a 286 with its extremely high speeds. Sony has proven it can be mass manufactured with mostly commodity parts for under $750.

Since Ubuntu already runs on Cell [psubuntu.com], a cheap Windows killer could take the Cell architecture to the top of the CPU stakes in record time from release. It would be a much easier/cheaper/faster target for porting PS3 games than Intel PCs. Apple, which supposedly dropped PPC for Intel because of heat:performance limitations, would have to look seriously at a return to PPC, especially since 45nm Cell with only a few SPUs could be a perfect fit for an iPhone successor. If not from Apple, then from someone smart enough to use Cell in the biggest market of all.

Re:Pricedrop?

[samkass]

Let's get realistic. Yes, the XBox360 is still beating the PS3, but they're no longer selling twice as many per month, and there are still millions of PS3s out there. And who buys games new anymore? You can get plenty of great used games at any of your mall stores these days.

The place where I think Sony screwed up is in limiting backwards compatibility with the PS2 games. New PS2 games are STILL coming out, and the PS2 is still selling very well. Sony could capitalize on that better if they'd kept backwards compatibility.

A $300 console with one controller and no games could probably sell pretty well if it could play most popular PS2 games.

Re:Effect on cost

[John Whitley]

For sony, yes. For end buyers? Nope. To sony this just means their profit margin got bigger.

BZZT! Shame on you and the mod that +1 Informative'd you. Does the most blatantly obvious bullet point in the Wii's success story escape you completely? Do try to grasp basic economic reasoning: Sony is out to make more money, but what's really likely given the nature of this product (game console hardware) and how they've been beaten up over their high price point? If possible, they'll implement a price cut to increase their market share. More consoles == more people to sell games to == more profit. Is that really so friggin' hard to grasp?