backtop

Gadgets Report: 40GB PS3 Shipping With 65nm Cell
Brandon Hill (Blog) - October 30, 2007 12:55 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 134 comment(s) - last by Shadowmaster62.. on Oct 31 at 3:59 PM
Sony reduces PS3 power consumption with chip swap

There has been plenty of press coverage on Microsoft's move to a 65nm processor on its Xbox 360 console. The Xbox 360, which has been notorious for heat-related problems in the past, is now equipped with less outlandish cooling hardware due to the cooler-running chips.

Sony isn't being left out when it comes to 65nm manufacturing, however. According to Engadget, the new 40GB PS3 -- which officially launches in the U.S. on November 2 -- will also feature a cooler-running 65nm Cell processor.

The move to a 65nm process allows power consumption to drop from 200 Watts down to a more palatable 135 Watts. The PS3 also has a new motherboard revision complete with an update Southbridge. The heatpipe used to cool the Cell processor has also been reduced in size thanks to the less demanding cooling requirements.

Heat problems haven't really plagued Sony's PS3 as they have the Xbox 360, but the move to 65nm technology should help Sony to trim manufacturing costs.

The 40GB PS3 has a price tag of $399.99 and will ship with a cop of Spider-Man 3 on Blu-ray. In order to reach the sub-$400 price point, the 40GB PS3 has no PS2 backwards compatibility, lacks a memory-card reader and features two fewer USB 2.0 ports than its more expensive 80GB brother.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Correction: Shouldn't it be the CPU & GPU
By mWMA on 10/30/2007 2:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
I thought according the original source (computerbase.de) Both the RSX and Cell are getting the 65nm shrink.

Considering that it is dropping a whopping 65W in power use (200W to 135W at peak now) a Cell processor alone cannot give such a huge drop alone. The updated South bridge isn't gonna decrease power usage by much either.




RE: Correction: Shouldn't it be the CPU & GPU
By deeznuts on 10/30/2007 2:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
This is a huge power drop. I'm almost inclined to sell my PS3 20gb, but seeing as I don't use it that much, and I still want my PS2 compatiblity, ehh I'll stay.

But this is good news, 65w drop is very signficant.


RE: Correction: Shouldn't it be the CPU & GPU
By kileil on 10/30/2007 2:47:41 PM , Rating: 4
My cat's frigid, shivering butt agrees completely.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/30/2007 3:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
Given the 65 watt drop, I would argue this is just the Cell. Cell chews up a ton of power. I'm not surpised the shrink saved so much.


By MrTeal on 10/30/2007 6:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'd argue against that being the only power savings, if the 200W to 135W figure in the article is accurate. Think about it, even if through some miracle the shrink cut the cell power usage in half, that would still mean that the Cell used 130W out of 200W in the old system. I find that very hard to believe, especially considering that the process shrink wouldn't net anywhere near a halving of power.


By mWMA on 10/30/2007 8:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
Cell in PS3 consume less than 80Watts total. and that is value from pre-production. each SPE consumes less than 5W.
http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cell/Cell1_v2.h...

Just about all 90 to 65nm shrink result in 30-45% drop in power. 90 to 45nm process depending on method will result in 50% or more.

Unless both the RSX and Cell had been shrunk I cannot see how CPU alone can provide such a huge drop.


RE: Correction: Shouldn't it be the CPU & GPU
By crazyblackman on 10/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Correction: Shouldn't it be the CPU & GPU
By Locutus465 on 10/30/2007 5:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
Some people care about their electric bills :P


RE: Correction: Shouldn't it be the CPU & GPU
By kileil on 10/30/2007 5:18:58 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Some people care about their electric bills :P


I care about other people's electric bills. Doc says I'm too empathetic. I hope it doesn't worry him at night.


By murphyslabrat on 10/31/2007 1:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Can we get a six here?


By TontoGo on 10/30/2007 7:37:15 PM , Rating: 5
Like the people that bought their PS3 to fold@home?


RE: Correction: Shouldn't it be the CPU & GPU
By softwiz on 10/30/2007 5:25:08 PM , Rating: 3
Anyone know who much power the PS2 Emotion / RSX / GS hardware ate ?

I was thinking that in addition to the die shrink, the complete removal of BC means it won't be sucking up power / causing heat either.


RE: Correction: Shouldn't it be the CPU & GPU
By Brockway on 10/30/2007 6:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
200 watts ps3 total. Not sure if the 200 is for the 80gb sku or the original 60gb though.

The ps3 gpu is just a 7800gtx, which consumes like 80 watts peak on the pc.

The ps2 slim's total power consumption was like 45 watts, but that includes dvd drive and all that.

Only info on Cell I could find was estimated power consumption of 60-80 watts.

So ~160 of the 200 watts are accounted for with cell and rsx, last 40 are blu-ray, motherboard, hard drive, and ps2 b/c hardware.


By walk2k on 10/30/2007 7:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
I have the original 20GB and it uses 170-205 watts, depending on what you are doing. I tested it myself with a "Kill-a-watt" meter.

Funny thing is it seems playing MP3s with the visualizer requires the most power. Folding@Home and playing games it uses about 185-190 watts.

I have no clue if the GPU has been 65nm'ed yet, though Nvidia did just release their first 65nm GPU yesterday (the G92) but that is a Geforce 8-series GPU, the RSX is based on a 7-series GPU.


Why don't people get it?
By glitchc on 10/30/2007 3:34:48 PM , Rating: 5
The popularity of the console has actually very little to do with the price point. It is determined by the games. So far, there's NO must-have PS3 game, which is why people quibble on the price. Price becomes a very flexible parameter when the system has an extremely popular (hyped) must-have game that everyone wants to play.

Even for PCs, the incentive to upgrade is just not there unless it's to run the latest and greatest software, be it game, application, or OS. Consider a videocard, the 8800GTX. We know it's out there and a few early adopters buy it, but it really sells only when you have a game like Crysis which everyone wants to play, and reviewers report that the GTX is the only card that can handle it in all its glory.




RE: Why don't people get it?
By SavagePotato on 10/30/2007 5:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
Actually ratchet and clank is totally awesome, exclusive, and exactly what I would call a must have.

I'm looking forward to playing tonight, final fantasy 13 I'm guessing will be falling in that category as well. For myself Conan has been a must have, but then I'm a Conan fanatic.

With call of duty 4, assasins creed, metal gear solid 4, grand theft auto 4, force unleashed, all on the list for release by Spring. I would say those would all be must have titles in my opinion as well. Possibly UT3 as well, though id sooner play it on my PC as is always the preference with FPS games.


RE: Why don't people get it?
By Locutus465 on 10/30/2007 5:12:33 PM , Rating: 1
How many of those must haves justify a $399 price tag to the average joe? At the high end the price difference is minimal, but at the entry level both Wii and 360 still have a big leg up on Sony.


RE: Why don't people get it?
By SavagePotato on 10/30/2007 5:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest I really don't give a rats ass what the average Joe does with his money. $399 for a blu ray player that plays games Is a plenty good deal to me. And there are plenty of games on ps3 despite the incessant bitching that there aren't, with more to come.

In fact $549 was a good enough deal for me, and the ps3 has been a very useful purchase for me. Even just as much as I use it as an upconverting dvd player and a blu ray player.

The average Joe is welcome to stick with the wii or 360 if it floats his boat.


RE: Why don't people get it?
By FITCamaro on 10/30/2007 8:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With call of duty 4, assasins creed, metal gear solid 4, grand theft auto 4, force unleashed,


Save MGS4, those are all available on the cheaper 360.


RE: Why don't people get it?
By michal1980 on 10/30/2007 8:40:45 PM , Rating: 1
how long is that cheaper card going to be pulled?

399 vs what 359 for the preimum xbox 360?

wow you saved 40 bucks and didnt get wi-fi and didnt get bluray Wooo. big bucks there


RE: Why don't people get it?
By FITCamaro on 10/30/2007 8:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
To play those games, you don't need the Premium. The Arcade pack for $280 will suffice just fine. Sure I wouldn't buy one, but for parents buying their kid a console and the kid wants to play those games, $280 vs $400 is a lot.

The point is that the cost of entry is lower. If you want the addons, you can get them. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft cut the 360s price again to account for the new PS3 model. They're just going to wait until after the Halo 3 induced sales drop off.


RE: Why don't people get it?
By FITCamaro on 10/30/2007 9:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I'm not saying the PS3 at $399 isn't a good deal. I just don't see any games that are drawing me to purchase one.


RE: Why don't people get it?
By BansheeX on 10/31/2007 12:26:41 PM , Rating: 1
That's because you're looking at it from the perspective of someone who has already bought a 360. If you had neither console and were making an actual CHOICE with a budget that will only allow for one console, then you would see worth in the PS3's library since it shares most of the games on the 360. Get it? Get it? Are we getting it yet?


RE: Why don't people get it?
By SavagePotato on 10/30/2007 10:16:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Save MGS4, those are all available on the cheaper 360.


And so what? Honestly Im sick of arguments like this. A good game for the ps3 can't be considered a good game if it's avaialble on the 360?

I have a description of that, BS.

If it is a good game, and on the ps3, thats all that matters, period. I don't give a rats ass what other consoles it is on. The people that want to argue theres no good games on the ps3 seem to have a loophole for every day of the week.


RE: Why don't people get it?
By FITCamaro on 10/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why don't people get it?
By SavagePotato on 10/30/2007 10:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
You implied that those games do not count on the ps3 because they are available on the 360. That is a crock.

Thats something that gets implied alot, that if it's not an exclusive it doesn't count or something, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a good game that is available on the ps3.

If you want to talk about exlcusive titles the only two on the 360 that I am even familiar with are gears of war, and halo3. I remember when gears came out and people breathed a sigh of relief as the 360 finaly had a "killer" game. Halo is of zero interest to me. FPS games on the console are not what I consider entertaining. Ratchet and clank, metal gear solid and gran tourismo 5 all come to mind, despite the last two not being out yet, at least as ones I know for the ps3. The 360 didn't get a great exclusive title till quite a ways in with gears.

At any rate the "there are no good games on the ps3" argument is getting stale.


RE: Why don't people get it?
By SirLucius on 10/31/2007 12:38:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats something that gets implied alot, that if it's not an exclusive it doesn't count or something, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a good game that is available on the ps3.


Q.F.T.

I prefer the PS3 controller to the 360 controller. If a game is available on both systems, I've almost always gone with the PS3 versions. They perform about the same on both systems, and I've found a lot of times games get a "PS3 tax" from reviewers.

If you take out Halo and Gears of War, the 360's exclusives are comparable to that of the PS3. Personally, I don't count 360 games as "exclusive" if they are available on the PC, so I don't see a game like Bioshock as a selling exclusive. Despite having a 360, I picked up the PC copy. But even if you want to count the games available for the PC, the 360 doesn't have this massive stockpile of killer, must have games.

People tend to have such short memories. I forget where I saw it, but somebody took the time to compare the critic ratings of the 360's best selling first year games to that of the PS3. And guess what, the 360 games netted about .3-5 points higher than the PS3 did overall. The PS3 is on par with where the 360 was, and we should see a big boom soon. It was a year after the 360 was released before Gears of War was released. 1 year and 11 months before Halo 3 came out. The PS3 is just coming into it's stride, just as the 360 did at this point in its life cycle.


What really matters isn't 65nm for PS3
By ChipDude on 10/30/2007 3:36:24 PM , Rating: 1
65nm so what, a little less power consumption so what. PS3 had no issue with heat, and what is a few cents a month when you are spending 400 bucks and more on the console and 60 dollars a pop on a game. If you are worried about a few cents a week in eletricity bill why the hell are you wasting your allowance on a console?

What really matters

Price: Sony needs to offer value, even at 399 it isn't enough. Sure sales will pop a bit 50% maybe, but that isn't nearly enough to catch the 360 or even come close to catching the wii. Sony really blew it by not offering the PS3 at 399 at launch and swallowing another 200 bucks loss. If they did they would surely have sold a few more million units

Games: Still a dirth of games to justify spending even 399 for a console. Xbox360 offers a wealth more games and better online experience for less. WII is even cheaper and you can still get a xbox360 and wii for the price of a high end PS3. Sony without a large installed base of consoles will find in 2008 the developeers will be slow to develop new games further hampering the desirability of the console. Wii is winning going away and xbox360 with halo and online is the high end value choice.

HD: The HD war is far from over. Its a toss up who will suck losses longer to continue the war; Sony / Toshiba. You can get a HD-dVD player for under 200 bucks already and I expect you'll see combo players for that price by next Christmas. Why would anybody be stupid enough to pull the trigger on a expensive console with limited games to get HD when he can wait a few more months and get more value and life for cheaper.

Sony really missed it. They lost billions up front, they should have bitten the bullet and sold the console out of the gun at launch for less; matchign xbox. At that price point they would have sucked a few hundred more loss but would have had a far large installed base that today they would have enough momentum to get game developer motivated. Today they are playing a catch-up game to 360 and wii. They are so far behind they have no hope of getting out of 3rd place. Lastly why do they continue to throw away backward compatibility of 40 million potential customers to save a few tens of dollars is beyond me.

PS3 was really before its time. Waiting for cell and BR to be ready complicated the launch and limited the games. Too much technology for too high a price. Even at launch they had a chance to fix it but the didn't. Now all this circus says Stringer and his band of executives really still can't figure out how to recover the PS3 debacle




By Chaser on 10/30/2007 5:30:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Price: Sony needs to offer value, even at 399 it isn't enough. Sure sales will pop a bit 50% maybe, but that isn't nearly enough to catch the 360 or even come close to catching the wii.


Where do we begin? OK first of all the PS3 doesn't have to "catch" anything. The PS3 is the next Playstation to the PS2. PS owners want the next generation of hardware. Now they have it. The Playstation is an international game. Its marketing scope and popularity -unlike the U.S. centric 360- are for a global market.

Second before you believe your PS3 wish eulogy take a look at the 1st year sales number of both consoles. The PS3 is way ahead in that regard.

And no the PS3 doesn't need a "killer game". It has a very good lineup of games and thank god the people that get paid to do marketing and develop games and consoles -that don't have time to rant on techie websites- realize the PS3 is the PS3. Its hear to stay. It HAS some great games and there are many more to come. a $399 PS3 is even better.

When are you guys going to get it. A console doesn't have to "win" to be a success. And this moronic idea that the PS3 was before its time. You go ahead and keep your 2006 console pal. I'm enjoying my time right now.


By BansheeX on 10/30/2007 8:02:13 PM , Rating: 3
We get a surprise news article that the PS3 is going to have something good that no one was expecting, and you go off on another doomsday rant? How about complimenting Sony just once for getting 65nm out the door so fast.

All you're doing is trying to convince yourself that $50 more isn't worth built-in blu-ray, peace and quiet while gaming, and free netplay. You were freaking tricked, deal with it. MS sells you a $350 console, for which you've likely already paid more than $50 for netplay and $150 for HDDVD if you got it. So how again is the PS3 not a better value now at $399, Mr. 360 analyst?


RE: What really matters isn't 65nm for PS3
By Mojo the Monkey on 10/30/2007 8:04:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
HD: The HD war is far from over. Its a toss up who will suck losses longer to continue the war; Sony / Toshiba.


Actually, its not far from over. I spoke with an analyst working in the AV industry and he told me a very interesting piece of information. When you look at the old Beta vs VHS format war... VHS came out ahead because of the porn industry. Thats right. Porn went VHS, and so did the customers.

Today, just like back then, the number of feature-film DVD's being sold PALES in comparison to the total number of porn DVDs being sold. And, well... porn is going HD-DVD.

Granted, nothing is written in stone. But it sounded like a pretty convincing argument to me.

(I still own neither)


RE: What really matters isn't 65nm for PS3
By OAKside24 on 10/30/2007 8:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
This argument was made and debunked in 2006, but thanks for the insight.


By SavagePotato on 10/30/2007 10:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
In addition, Sony has backed off blocking porn on blu-ray. If I am not mistaken the debbie does dallas sequel will be on blu-ray, which was mentioned somewhere else.

Besides that, people get most of their porn online these days, or steal in ala bittorrent. Hence the whole we're going to kill torrents tirade of the porn companies.


RE: What really matters isn't 65nm for PS3
By theapparition on 10/31/2007 7:15:42 AM , Rating: 2
Like it or not, there is no doubt that the adult industry has had a large effect on the market. But there are two points I'd like to make.
1.) I don't think the market was quite as swayed by the porn industy as you believe. I believe lower costs, more manufacturer choices, and most importantly, 2+hr recording time contributed far more towards VHS's adoption. People didn't like not being able to fit an entire movie on one tape, and considering that T-60 tapes cost upwards of $60-$100 in the early VCR days, media costs were an incredible factor in purchasing decisions.
2.) Even if adult content on VHS was the de-facto reason for VHS's dominance over Beta, times have changed now. There wasn't the internet as it is now. People are more likely now to get adult content from the internet, rather than buying any physical media.
I think the adult industries' position on HD media this time is completely irrelevant.


RE: What really matters isn't 65nm for PS3
By SavagePotato on 10/31/2007 9:30:02 AM , Rating: 2
However porn is NOT blocked on blu-ray any longer, it WILL be available on blu-ray in the future.

One thing I find quite ironic is beta's shorter running time, which is the real reason why it never picked up steam. (the shorter running time was corrected toward the end which was already too late.) Ironic because HD-DVD is in the position of being the technicaly inferior format with less storage, and hence shorter runnig time, yet some think it is the holy grail.

If a 1400p or 2550p standard ever came along, which I saw mentioned in the same breath as samsungs future oled production, HD-DVD would be horribly inadequite rather than just slightly inadequite like it is now. 100+ gig blu ray discs that will be available by then mind you. Nonetheless it seems funny that the primary thing that made beta lose it's format war is the primary disadvantage of HD-DVD


RE: What really matters isn't 65nm for PS3
By wallijonn on 10/31/2007 1:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
HD-DVD is in the position of being the technically inferior format with less storage, and hence shorter running time, yet some think it is the holy grail.


The question is how much space a two hour movie takes if they both use the same codec?

Part of the BR problem has been the present profile which necessitates two movies being put on one disc, with the second exact movie being PIP. The second problem is that with the next profile the older players may not be able to play the newer movies (BJava). The third BD profile will allow Ethernet connection,. which is probably over a year away.

Anyone who has bought a PS3 can probably afford a $200 HD player, so the argument is moot.


By SavagePotato on 10/31/2007 1:22:49 PM , Rating: 1
There is more to consider than just picture, such as sound, as well as the possibility of future video specifications beyond 1080p.

Being a ps3 owner means I have no worries about bd profiles, It's a linux box with processing power to spare. Which means it can do anything and everything that comes along via firmware update.(much like 1080p/24 support recently being added to it's firmware.)


That's a good chunk of power savings...
By Mojoed on 10/30/2007 1:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
...and less heat too.

I'll bite when the 65nm 80GB version is released.




RE: That's a good chunk of power savings...
By theflux on 10/30/2007 1:48:21 PM , Rating: 4
The hard drive is user-replaceable under warranty.


RE: That's a good chunk of power savings...
By Brockway on 10/30/2007 2:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
He wants ps2 b/c in addition to the 65nm cell, not the extra 40gb.


RE: That's a good chunk of power savings...
By Freddo on 10/30/2007 2:21:34 PM , Rating: 3
Yep, and so do I.

There are still PS2 games out there that I want to play, and my PS2 is not in a good shape after several years of heavy usage (the DVD drive stutters a lot which causes very long loading times).


RE: That's a good chunk of power savings...
By omnicronx on 10/30/2007 4:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
ebay *caugh*.. the 80gig model is not 100% compatible.. just so you know.. you may want to get your hands on a 60 before they run out. Something like 70% of games are supported though


By SavagePotato on 10/30/2007 4:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'll sell you my 60gb for $1200, er wait no that's Jack Trenton talking there.

More and more glad I picked up the loaded up 60gb unit before they were discontinued.


one of these
By Gul Westfale on 10/30/2007 1:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
for 400 bucks, with the hard drive swapped out for a 160GB one doesn't look like a such bad deal now... if only the games were better; and with crysis coming out soon i need to invest in my PC rather than buy a console :)




RE: one of these
By crazyblackman on 10/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: one of these
By FITCamaro on 10/30/2007 8:41:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Heavenly Sword would brick a 360.


Your basis for this statement? The 360 is capable of the same graphical detail as the PS3.

And Heavenly Sword got rather lackluster reviews. Too short and repetitive fights and enemies. Great graphics do not a good game make. Halo 3 wasn't the greatest game ever made either, but Heavenly Sword would hardly be the title to make me go out and buy a PS3.


RE: one of these
By crazyblackman on 10/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: one of these
By BansheeX on 10/30/2007 8:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
Crysis is expected to come to 360 and PS3. The one requirement? Patience.


RE: one of these
By FITCamaro on 10/30/2007 8:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
Even Crytek said though if Crysis comes to the 360 or PS3, its going to be a shadow of its self on PC. The consoles don't have the memory.


RE: one of these
By Gul Westfale on 10/31/2007 1:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
well said camaro; and when i said "better games" i did not mean better graphics, i meant better gameplay.

to a console owner halo is indeed the holy grail, but on the PC it is just another FPS, with a derivative story, a cliched main character, and tired gameplay. games like crysis try to move the genre on a bit by including large outdoor areas, destructible environment (apparently you can mow brush and bushes down if you think someone is hiding there), and better physics.

halo 3 already pushes the x360 to its limits now (if it didn't it wouldn't have to run in fake high-res), whereas the possibilities on the PC are endless... of course a PC costs way more but since i also use mine for music, movies and TV i save money elsewhere... and it's worth it to me.


backwards smackwards
By zornundo on 10/30/2007 2:37:05 PM , Rating: 3
Did it really matter that the SNES and Genesis weren't backwards compatible with the NES and Master System? Or the N64 with the SNES or the Gamecube with the N64?? didn't think so.




RE: backwards smackwards
By stubeck on 10/30/2007 7:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
The Genesis was. It required an add in cartridge, but it could play all of the cartridge Master system games.


RE: backwards smackwards
By SavagePotato on 10/30/2007 10:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
I beleive it was called the sega master system converter. I had a sega master system, bought a genesis, and had the master system converter. Used it quite alot to play all my old games I might add.

I think the only thing it lacked was the card slot for card games.

I still have my old genesis, in it's original box up on a shelf to look at for nostalgia once and a while. I remember paying $250 Canadian for it, which was being royaly hosed at the time, but we have always got royaly hosed on prices in Canada.


Add-on maybe?
By Darthefe on 10/31/2007 2:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
You guys should think about the fact that the PS3 was not really 100% backwards compatible with the PS2 it used the GS from the PS2 but not the EE, so technically it is possible to make an add-on, which is the GS to make the 40GB version Backwards compatible. PLZ reply to me Tech geeks.




no backwards compatibility?
By Shadowmaster625 on 10/31/2007 3:59:06 PM , Rating: 1
wow sony just gets dumber and dumber. This used to be something one could always count on from sony.




No backwards compatibility = no sale
By webdawg77 on 10/30/07, Rating: -1
By bespoke on 10/30/2007 1:10:41 PM , Rating: 3
Well if you're ever going to buy a PS3, you had better do it before the 60gb and 80gb SKUs go away, because I doubt Sony is going to be making any new SKUs with BC.

It's a cost saving issue, and we know that Sony is bleeding money.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By zinfamous on 10/30/2007 1:13:12 PM , Rating: 5
I disagree. PS3 is the most popular Blu-ray player out there. Serious A/V people are buying them only as a Blu-Ray player. This is going to add more adopters, which is a good idea from Sony's standpoint.

Gamers, who are willing to to fork over nearly a grand to rice up their PCs, if but only to play the latest and greatest (cough*Crisis*cough) shouldn't have a problem paying an extra $100 for the gamer-friendly version. I'm no Sony fan boy, but frankly, that's a damn good price for this piece of hardware.

I can't justify paying $500 for one piece of hardware-a GPU. That, IMO, is the height of irrationality. I can, however, justify that same amount for a machine that is more than capable today, and will have a life beyond 2 quarters of hardware updates.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By webdawg77 on 10/30/2007 1:18:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I disagree. PS3 is the most popular Blu-ray player out there. Serious A/V people are buying them only as a Blu-Ray player. This is going to add more adopters, which is a good idea from Sony's standpoint.


I am buying the PS3 to play games, not to watch Blu-ray movies.

quote:
Gamers, who are willing to to fork over nearly a grand to rice up their PCs, if but only to play the latest and greatest (cough*Crisis*cough) shouldn't have a problem paying an extra $100 for the gamer-friendly version. I'm no Sony fan boy, but frankly, that's a damn good price for this piece of hardware.


As my original post says, I'm talking about playing PS1 and PS2 games. These are definitely not the latest and greatest. My "gaming" PC is by no means all "riced" out either: X2 4200+, ATI 1950Pro, 2GB RAM. It plays the games I want with medium settings @ 1280x1024.

Again, Sony still touts how well the PS2 sells. And, with some good games still coming out on it, why not let the PS3 play those games as well?


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By clovell on 10/30/2007 1:53:56 PM , Rating: 3
I've said this before - it's about market penetration. The PS3 is not a bad peice of hardware - it's just not taking at the current price point. If Sony can't get more market penetration soon, devs will start jumping ship, meaning less cool games will be made and less consoles will be sold.

The price reduction via the elimination of BC is a wise move. It brings the price point down within reach - $399 is a very good price point - the Xbox 360 had no problem at $399. This should move consoles, and encourage devs to develop more NEW games. Because Sony isn't so concerned about the old ones you already have - they already have your money.

Plus, you're getting a PS3 for a much nicer price - give up fast food for a couple week and take the money you'd save on the no-BC version of the PS3, and you can buy new PS2 - which is going to run PS2 games fine and emulate PS1 games better than the PS3 could. And that's not even getting into the fact that anybody who has a library of PS1/2 games probably already has a PS2.

All in all, you may end up spending just a few more dollars, but this way you have options - and that's a good thing for the consumer, and, in this case, a good thing for Sony.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By Chris Peredun on 10/30/2007 2:09:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
And that's not even getting into the fact that anybody who has a library of PS1/2 games probably already has a PS2.


Not everyone wants to keep their PS1/2 hooked up in the living room/entertainment center though.


By webdawg77 on 10/30/2007 2:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.


By SirLucius on 10/30/2007 2:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
Buy a 60 or 80GB then. Picking up a 60 or 80GB is cheaper than getting a 40GB and a PS2 separately (~$500 vs ~$530). And if you already have the older systems but don't plan on keeping them hooked up, go to an EB/Gamestop and trade in the old systems towards picking up one of the SKU's that support backwards compatibility. There's a good chance you can get the cost of a 60 or 80GB down to around the 40GB if you took good care of your systems.


By clovell on 10/30/2007 2:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
I hadn't considered that. Though I would think that if such aesthetics (or logistics, if you don't have an input to spare on your TV) were a concern, a person would be more likely bite the bullet and spend the extra money.

But, that's just what I think - I've personally never had a gaming system permanently hooked up to the TV in the living room - so, I'm pretty biased =)


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By omnicronx on 10/30/2007 2:37:56 PM , Rating: 3
And not everyone wants to pay the extra $100 for BC and 2 extra usb ports. Something gives me a feeling there are a lot more people that care about price, then people that care about have an aesthetically pleasing room. PS3 sales have proven so... I think $399 is the magic number, and just in time for the holiday season. I for one will be buying one, just for the BD player, i can't say the same for the $500 price point.

Don't get me wrong, I like having as little hardware in my TV room as possible, but if i had to chose between $100 and keeping my ps2 in the room, (which uses A/V cables so its not like i have to switch cables all the time) the $100 would win outright every time ;)


By Oscarine on 10/30/2007 4:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
I paid the extra 100$ and I got the 60GB Model because I wanted true backward compatibility not the skewered one the 80GB brings.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By BladeVenom on 10/30/2007 1:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't justify paying $500 for one piece of hardware-a GPU. That, IMO, is the height of irrationality.


Yes, it does seem pretty irrational spending $500 on a limited use console, when you could get a far superior 8800 GT for under $250.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By clovell on 10/30/2007 1:55:45 PM , Rating: 1
Right, and the rest of your setup costs how much?


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By therealnickdanger on 10/30/2007 2:33:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Right, and the rest of your setup costs how much?

With a 8800GT as your centerpiece, you could get away with spending very little to get a console capable of better graphics than any console. Just by going off Newegg pricing:

$50 - 2GB DDR2 RAM
$80 - decent mobo
$130 - Core 2 Duo
$30 - generic case and PSU
$45 - 80GB HDD
$30 - DVD Burner

$250 - 8800GT (pricing should settle down to $200)

So you've successfully assembled and configured your new computer and maybe even overclocked the sh*t out of the E4300 you just bought. Altogether, you've spent $560 for a potent (but not high-end) gaming PC. Get a Q6600 and still stay under $700. Here's what you can do with your PC that you can't do with any console:

1. Gaming. Ultimate backward compatibility. Via emulators, patches, wrappers, and countless other hax, you can play virtually ANY PC game, NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, Saturn, PS1, Commodor64, GameBoy, Game Gear, NeoGeo, or arcade game. You can plug in any controller, joystick, flight yoke, whatever.

2. Media. Limitless. Any bitrate, any wrapper, any codec, any size. Video, audio, pictures, tactile devices, smell-o-vision?

3. Internet. Limitless. You can do it all from hosting a website to creating one, to surfing, to whatever.

4. Applications ranging from free to purchased, there's once again no limit to what you can do.

5. Upgrades. Can't run Half-Life 3? Get a new CPU or more RAM, don't replace the whole thing.

I'm perfectly content existing in both worlds. The strengths of a PC far outweigh consoles, but for many people, the ease of use of a console can't be matched.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By Bull Dog on 10/30/2007 2:43:39 PM , Rating: 3
Do not, and I repeat, DO NOT skimp on the PSU. Plan on spending at least $50 for one.


By therealnickdanger on 10/31/2007 10:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
Bah! That's nonsense. Every computer I've ever built in the last 15 years (except for one) has had a generic, POS PSU and not ONE has ever died or killed any components. With the money I've saved by not giving into the "premium PSU" market, I could afford to replace them all should they ever fail. You only need to pay more for a PSU if you want special features or whisper-quiet operation or if you're in that upper echelon of uber-overclockers. The overwhelming majority of average, everyday PSUs run forever in most situations - despite their lower efficiency ratings and lint-filled fans.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By omnicronx on 10/30/2007 2:44:34 PM , Rating: 1
yawn... you forgot to mention, whats the upgrade cycle of a PC again.. oh ya 6-8 months.. Meanwhile i can buy 1 console, and use it for 4 years. I played the PC game for 10 years before I bought a console. I had to upgrade my video card every year and a half, and I upgraded my system every 1-2 years. Adds up much faster than you think...

A PC gamer does not settle for something that 'just' runs, it has to be the best, or close to it. If you want to play all the newest games when they come out, you will be upgrading quite a bit.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By BladeVenom on 10/30/2007 3:11:58 PM , Rating: 3
You don't need to upgrade every 6-8 months, that's total nonsense. A 9700 Pro could play every game that came out for at least 4 years.

PC gamers don't require the best hardware. Most of my computers have been midrange with a good graphics card, not the best.


By omnicronx on 10/30/2007 3:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing like a linear response to a non-linear question.
I had a Radeon for 4 years, then i got a 9800pro didn't upgrade for 3 years, then i got a 6600gt one year later i got a 7600gt. Once again one year later, if i want to play new games on a higher resolution than 800x600 I will need to upgrade.

As time goes on, the upgrade cycles have decreased. If i were to go out today and get an 8800gt to play crysis, I would probably be back in the same store 1 year later buying a new video card to play the next new game.

Keep in mind my examples are not going overboard either, many PC gamers demand high frame rates and must have the best hardware.

Having a PC to play the newest games at playable framerates all the time (which consoles provide) will cost you more than buying a console every 4 years, there is no debating this.


By SirLucius on 10/30/2007 3:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
One of the big reasons people love PC gaming is the constant increase in the quality of games' graphics. I can't think of too many people that would be satisfied playing any modern PC game on a 9700 Pro.

While most gamers don't have really high end systems, they do have a decent setup and upgrade that setup every 1-2 years to stay in that midrange bracket. Your average gamer is looking to spend at between $300-500 over a 4 year period on the graphics card alone. Compared to the one time cost of at most $500 for a console that lasts at least 4 years, it's really hard to compare.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By Bioniccrackmonk on 10/30/2007 3:48:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A 9700 Pro could play every game that came out for at least 4 years.


Right, and when was that out, the end of DX8, beginning of DX9? Look at the games that were coming out in that era compared to what is currently coming out and what will be coming out and you will see a huge difference in the system demands each new game now has compared to back then.

quote:
PC gamers don't require the best hardware. Most of my computers have been midrange with a good graphics card, not the best.


The 360 and the PS3 are setup for HD gaming now out the box. You mid range computer couldn't put out what they put out and match the HD of it. You would need top of the line to run at a minimum of 1920x1080 with all the fancy features.


By therealnickdanger on 10/31/2007 10:50:04 AM , Rating: 3
Too bad hardly any PS3 or 360 games are actually rendered at 1920x1080. You really only need to run 1280x720 to match the best looking console games. Easy as pie.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By mWMA on 10/30/2007 9:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
well if you really must compare then here is more simpler configuration for comparison.

Get a dell for $499.
Dell Inspiron 531, AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 4000+, 2GB RAM, 250GB, 16x DVD+/-RW Drive, 17 inch SE178WFP WSFP Monitor, Windows Vista™ Home Premium
Buy a 8800GT for $240 or $210 after price settles.

Load up any game and you can game at or above the 1280x800 resolution that most HD console games are rendered below before being upscaled.

I guess this would be better value for your money if you really must PC game.
Remember that as a console user you pay more over the long run. PC games even the latest are always 10-15 dollar lower than any console. Mind you console do have a bigger selection since they primary purpose is gaming.

PC is more versatile than a console but then again each have their advantages but in the end the new (upscaled HD) consoles are nothing more than custom high end PC components in disguise being sold at loss upfront for profit in the long run.

As for comparing needs of console and PC. The PC will wins just like a TV because everyone needs a PC/Laptop at least once in their lifetime even if they borrow someone else.


By mWMA on 10/30/2007 9:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
oh incase you already have a HDTV or LCD which should always have VGA/DVI/HDMI type of connection. You can lower the price a little bit and up the spec bit more.

Again a Dell AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 5600+, 2GB RAM, 320GB, 16X DVD+/-RW Drive, Genuine Windows Vista™ Home Premium
Price $450
Add a 8800GT again to it.

now game on. Oh if you decide not to use AA then you can look forward to most game running with better detail then a console on that configuration at 1920x1080 for your true 1080p rendering without upscaling.

The claim you need to upgrade your PC in 6-8 month in invalid. The game you need to upgrade your PC in 1-2 year is invalid. Being a good shopper and reading up less to lower the burden to high end PC gaming is very valid.


By aos007 on 10/30/2007 11:15:52 PM , Rating: 3
Whoa, don't push it. Yes, PC games are cheaper. They also have LESS resale value. I can always get a very good price for a CONSOLE game if I finish the game within a week or two and sell on Ebay or wherever. For PC, the demand is smaller, the prices you fetch are lower and most importantly many have NO resale value because of the activation model - e.g. Valve games, or just about any multiplayer game which requires serial number registration. So the game price argument does not hold.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By Amiga500 on 10/30/2007 2:56:39 PM , Rating: 1
No monitor there dude.

Whats the cheapest price point for a monitor you could use to watch Blu-Ray movies on?

$100?

Also, I agree on the point about a PSU - its something not to be skimped on.

I reckon your talking at least $500 (probably nearer $600) for an anyway workable system.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By BladeVenom on 10/30/2007 3:15:09 PM , Rating: 3
What's the cheapest HDTV you can watch Blu-Ray movies on? Add that to the consoles cost. Most people still don't have a HDTV. Most computer users already have a monitor or two.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By omnicronx on 10/30/2007 3:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
Who doesn't own a TV? Most people don't have larger than a 17" monitor either, so HD does not really come into play either. Regardless most people have both a computer monitor and a TV already, making your point moot.


By ethana2 on 10/30/2007 4:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
TV tuner and monitor.

My family has never really watched TV anyways.
So I guess the answer to your question is 'me'.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By Bioniccrackmonk on 10/30/2007 3:53:46 PM , Rating: 1
inFocus sells a 1080i PROJECTOR for $600 off their website. So lets add that to the cheapest console the PS3 has for true HD gaming, $1000. Now, go build you a computer that can do HD gaming, online, with a 90" screen and come talk to me then. Heck, add an extra $100 for some cheap 5.1 surround setup, which is possible if you buy a cheap one like all the crap parts you looked up for your computer.

By the way, good luck overclocking your processor on that crappy mobo and ram, lol.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By Spartan Niner on 10/30/2007 4:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
Abit IP35-E $69.99AR + shipping -$5 PriceGrabber Rebate
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...[/L]

Crucial Ballistix DDR2-800 2x1GB $49.99AR + $5 shipping
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...[/L]

"Crappy mobo and ram"? I got a similar setup except I purchased value RAM (SuperTalent DDR2-667, 2GB for ~$50 shipped) and am currently running an E2140 @ 2.8GHz on an Abit IP35-E. You're behind the times - it's entirely possible to build a nice $700 or so rig. The RAM overclocks to 1000MHz+ @ 2.0V CAS5, BTW.


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By drakanious on 10/30/2007 3:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
You don't get a television when you buy a console system, so that makes sense (as he was making a comparison to consoles).


RE: No backwards compatibility = no sale
By Bioniccrackmonk on 10/30/07, Rating: -1
By rdeegvainl on 10/31/2007 7:38:01 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah seriously, i mean i don't even have a tv let alone one that can display hd.......


By therealnickdanger on 10/31/2007 11:01:53 AM , Rating: 1
The 8800GT has TV output, so you don't need a monitor. Dude, you're wrong, just admit it and move on.


By michal1980 on 10/30/2007 3:01:09 PM , Rating: 3
just your set up costs 615 dollars. or 115 more then a ps3 that comes with a game and a controller.

And you forgot a O.S. So about 100 more dollars.. now your at 715. that case/psu also seems way to bargin basement to be any good. So add another 50 just to make it realistic.

your up to 765 dollars. You say you want all media? well blu-ray/hd-dvd same you get the combo drive (270)your at 1035 dollars. for that you could get a ps3 and a 360w/hd drive (1030 dollars).

and yes pc gaming has a place but so do consoles.


By Bioniccrackmonk on 10/30/2007 3:57:00 PM , Rating: 3
Lets see what is wrong with this;

First off, what brand of ram did you look at, the slowest most generic thing they had?

Mobo maybe.

Proc is dead on for an e4300.

Generic case and PSU for 30, not sure where to begin with that comment except that it must be a garbage case and PSU.

I will give you money if you buy these parts exactly as you listed them and
quote:
overclocked the sh*t out of the E4300 you just bought
with the garbage you just purchased. Hope the heat and lack of power doesn't hold you back.