PS3 Slim is cheaper, yes, and new Cell processor makes it faster, maybe
By Thomas Ricker 
posted August 20th 2009 4:49AM
posted August 20th 2009 4:49AM
If you've been on the fence with that new console purchase then maybe this bit of information will push you over. Not only is the $299 PS3 Slim a skinnier version than its fat bro, it also features a new upgraded Cell processor (jointly developed by IBM, Toshiba, and Sony), according to an IBM spokesman, that uses smaller, more efficient, and less costly 45-nm processes first hinted at back in February of 2008. IBM doesn't specify the clock speed. The 45-nm Cell is 34 percent smaller and requires 40% less power than the original 65-nm processor according to earlier accounts. Any changes to the graphics in the PS3 Slim are still unknown -- the GPU is simply listed as the NVIDIA RSX like the ol' chubster before it. Nevertheless, the IDG New Service says the PS3 Slim "adds hardware enhancements that make it speedier."What's odd is that Sony didn't make any claims of the PS3 slim being faster at launch and the "boost" in processing speed in the IDG article quoting IBM doesn't seem to come from the IBM spokesman. As such, we're not sure if this is just an improvement in performance-per-watt or something the gamer will actually notice during play. We're still working on the review but rest assured, that's one question we're determined to answer.
"What's odd is that Sony didn't make any claims of the PS3 slim being faster at launch."
Why should they?
It's not faster just less heat/power consumption.
Im betting that the new chip is capable of higher processing power but they will underclock it to aid with cooling.
The author of this article is obviously clueless.
The fundamental basis of the console market is to create a stable platform for developers to maximize their development costs by being able to reuse their existing technology for multiple games over hopefully as long as 9-10 years that a console like the PS2 or PS3 is active in the market.
You don't change the speed of the components. Ever.
You make them more efficient. Less power. Less heat. Quieter.
But you don't change the performance of the hardware. A game that runs on a launch PS3 needs to run exactly the same on the very latest models with die shrunk chips and optimized and upgraded motherboards.
@ Yoyodyne
i'm not sure how making the cell processor's speed faster would be a "bad" thing. if anything, it would make the ps3 a more attractive platform to develop (or continue developing) on.
plus, altering core speed doesn't change how a game is run. obviously, a game made to run on windows vista/i7 3.0ghz will still work fine on windows vista/i7 overclocked to 3.5ghz
@Linerardrag
Sony did say that the PS3 slim is identical of the PS3 Fat expect the removal of the Install OS option.
And as what yoyo have explained this is not how console gaming works plus why would they waste more R & D to pump the speed specially when it create more heat for no purpose, PS3 bottleneck is the GPU not the CPU to begin with.
Underclock? I think the term you are looking for is called "throttling"
No, underclock is the proper term... Slowing down the speed (core clock) is underclocking- overclocking would be the exact opposite... Though they won't change the speed at all.
@ lineardrag
imagine they upgrade a consoles cpu/gpu, so a new developer aims at this new spec for his product, pushes the envelope and releases his product. Now anyone trying to play this game on an older unit gets shafted with stuttering frame rates. If he aims for the lower, standard spec on a game with locked framerate then the new hardware will make little difference.
In short it makes no sense to alter console hardware.
It wouldn't be a first for Sony, they added RAM to the PSP slim.
That said, I can't imagine "faster" means anything other than clocks-per-Watt, though I wouldn't be heartbroken if they were able to OC a die-shrunk RSX.
What if they made the processor faster, but developers still optimized new games for the old processor speed. Wouldn't the menus at least be faster?
Another nail in the coffin against the $299 Fat. Seriously, why even have it around?
chubby chasers?
Huh?
The existing PS3 models are being phased out but there are still some left in the retail channel.
i will probably be buying a used fatty when it gets cheap enough, i have to make sure i have one before the last guardian.
you're right, sony should just destroy them...and themselves while their at it.
I think the fact that you can install linux on the fat ones makes them interesting
Linux.
Without it we would all surely die.
I still haven't heard confirmation on whether or not the HDD is replaceable on the slim, which could be a big advantage for the fatty. Also, I happen to like the look of the fatty more than the slim, and I suspect I'm not the only one.
Removable HDD 100% confirmed, you should read a few of the articles floating around here.
Why keep the fat around?
a) Linux
b) It doesn't need a $24 stand
c) It's not butt ugly
d) This rumor is likely a single member of the press who doesn't know what he's talking about, as nobody else has reported this, nor would it make any sense at all.
That last point is most salient to this particular discussion.
The removable HDD bay is on the lower right of the PS3 slim when look at it from the front.
What I'd like to know is, how big is this thing, exactly?
13.385"(w) x 13.385"(h) x 6.299"(d)
These are the dimensions Amazon is listing. The depth is wrong obviously, but what has me concerned is the part below in parentheses:
"External dimensions (excluding maximum projecting part): Approx. 290 × 65 × 290 mm." From Engadget post.
Does that mean, cords sticking out the back make it bigger (duh), or did Sony just measure the base, and ignore the front overhang?
Linux is very nice (work for hosting company)-but lets be honest...Most people aren't that interested in building their cars from scratch either :-/
This is one case where a fatty looks better.
The PS3 Slim will be faster with the same spec's as the PS3 Fat.
Why? Well guess what, the failure rate on the PS3 fat was sooo high they just turned OFF one of the cell processors.
If that once off processor is not ON, that is a speed increase.
Keeping in mind, when you program for the PS3 you have to factor in another possible failure of a cell processor, that games that account for this could get a nice speed boost.
There was a high failure rate for the PS3? That's new news to me. My 20GB is still strong and so is my friends 60GB.
One of the cores is turned off at the factory. AMD does the same thing, that's why they have a lot of 3 core chips and Intel has none. The more cores you add, the higher the failure rate of a core. Putting in only processors with 8 working cores significantly adds cost but limiting all chips to 7 allows many more chips to be used lowering costs.
These machines are designed around the graphics chip anyways so a higher clockspeed will do little to nothing to improving the PS3. The bottleneck is found with the Blu-ray drive and RAM. And the NVIDIA chip.
@crenor
"...the failure rate on the PS3 fat was sooo high..."
Compared to what, the 360?
Welcome to the forum Mr. Ballmer, but please keep your comments within the realm of reality.
The failure rate wasn't on the PS3. THe Cell processor had low yields. Because it was so big, the probability of something going wrong were that much higher. IBM found that by turning off the least perfect SPD, they could run all the other ones at a faster speed.
Now the IBM/AMD 45nm process has improved significantly and the chips are smaller, so it makes sense that they may no longer be required to disable one of hte SPDs to get the speed they want. It could also be that they just plain increased the clock speed.
Crenor was talking about the failure rate of the processor. They disabled on of the 8 cell cores to improve chip yield. He is not saying that the PS3 itself died. It is quite common for computer chips to have failures during manufacturing. Typically they just slow down the speed of the processor, which is why a 2GHz CPU and a 2.3 GHz CPU might be identical and are in fact produced on the same line.
@Crenor
http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/08/20/1527212/Xbox-360-Failure-Rate-Is-542
How timely.
@crazyburns
then why did he say this:
"... the failure rate on the PS3 fat was sooo high..."?
Sounds like FUD to me. He implied failure of the PS3. Turning off an under-performing core prior to device manufacturing is not the same as "failure" after sale to a consumer.
To be fair, the failure rate of the PS3 is over 10%.
While this is nothing compared to the atrocious rate at which 360s seem to be catching fire /jk, it's still nothing to be proud of.
@Why should I have all the fun?
You're right. He did imply that the PS3s were failing. I guess I should have said, "I believe what Crenor really means is..."
@crazyburns
Well thats an incredibly measured, respectful and reasonable response.
WTF ;)
@Why should I have all the fun?
Not everyone on the interwebs is a close-minded asshole... just most :)
Even more incentive to get a slim, yay!
Even more incentive to lose weight.. You will run faster and be better.. and not over heat as much and cost less to work.. Indeed.. Not being a fat person has its advantages as well..
@doug
plus you'll look better?
It's obvious y they didn't say the new PS3 is faster cuz then ppl who own the old one will be pissed that Sony released a new PS3 which is faster and better...and not jsut slim...they can't jsut say this kind of stuff...like that no one will buy the old PS3 thinking they can play games faster and get more kills in games like Killzone and Resistance...
We always knew the ps3 slim was coming. It was just a matter of time. Everyone I know who had the Playstation 2 had the slim version.
It would fragment PS3 market if the new version was actually faster in any real world game playing sense. Developers would have to code with the original rev in mind anyways.
If the 80 gb phat was 250, I'd get it for the linux capability and just spend the extra 50 on an upgraded hard drive. I think the shinier mirror finish looks better than the matte finish. There are some people who would get the phat version over the slim version for other reasons. Some people think that the slim might break down quicker from using inferior parts to the phat and concerned that the slimmed down version doesn't provide enough cooling. I hope we get a more in depth review of the specs compared to the phat ps3 soon. I guess we'll get our answers on Sep. 1st when it comes out to consumers.
Amazon(UK) changed their prices for the chubster 80gb to £250.. Enjoy :)
250 GBP is more than $400 US
I like my launch 60GB for its full backwards compatibility. Also, I like Linux on it. Also, I like the mirror finish and chrome accents. Also I like that wifi didn't cost me $100. Also I like that I don't have a failure rate on my console of over 50%.
I'll end up buying a slim as well, but I'll still be keeping the 60GB for BC. I have my gaming rig and VMWare for Linux.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/02/ibm-shrinks-cell-to-45nm-cheaper-ps3s-will-follow.ars
No, the processor is not faster, just more efficient.
- Matt
Of course, that is the main point in the redesing of the whole console. Mantain performance for fewer resources, that is the point of re-designing.
And if it were faster (which again, it isn't ) Sony would not annouce it, because that would hurt classic PS3 sales even more.
It definitely wont be faster, or even if it is no one would take advantage of it because that would make the software run worse on the older console.
The extra power efficiency is achieved through the die shrink whilst maintaining the same clock speed. There would be no incentive AT ALL to running at a higher clock speed.
If the new upgraded cell processor makes the PS3 "faster", which I doubt it does, its obvious why sony would want to keep that on the DL. Then most consumer would be like F that I want that faster one for the same price and sony would have all those chubbys collecting dust. This way they can sell them to people who don't care for the size, weight or new look of the PS3 slim and buy all the phat ones. However it would be interesting to see if the price of the chubby PS3 drops even further when the slim is finally available at stores. Shhhhhhiiiiiiit $250 for a PS3 = $250 less in my pocket.