Sony Slimming Down PS3 Chip Size

[ZION]

http://gear.ign.com/articles/951/951718p1.html

Sony aims to cut PS3 production costs with new chips.
by Scott Lowe
February 5, 2009 - In an interview with The Guardian, Sony Europe president Sony Computer Entertainment Europe revealed that the company will swap out cell chips in the PlayStation 3 to reduce production costs later this year. In lieu of huge quarterly losses, Sony has already begun to slim down its staff and manufacturing base by cutting over 16,000 jobs and closing six production centers.

As one of the company's most notable products, the PlayStation 3 represents a significant portion of the company's manufacturing operations, and according to Reeves, will likely be undergoing some revisions later this year. Among the revisions will be a swap from the PS3's current 65 nanometer cell chip with a smaller, more cost effective 45 nanometer cell chip.

"We're always looking at ways to reduce costs," said Reeves. "Replacing the current 65 nanometre cell chip with a 45 nanometre one probably in middle of year."

What does the new chip mean for the system? Well, the 45 nm chip has a higher energy efficiency and runs cooler than the current 65 nm chip. Additionally, the chip will make the overall production costs lower on the system, potentially paving the way for future price reductions. But don't get too excited, PS3 price reductions won't be happening anytime soon, during the interview Reeves maintained that resisting the urge to cut prices is crucial to Sony's economic rebound.

[C.H.U.D.]

so if the new chip doesn't sacrifice any performance, why didn't they use it in the first place?

[ZION]

so if the new chip doesn't sacrifice any performance, why didn't they use it in the first place?

lol. Same question I have.

[strtfghtr]

wow this is big news...the Cell processor was supposed to be the PS3's golden ticket...once it's full programming potential was realized it was supposed to lead the way in not only the video game world but the whole consumer electronics world.

Now it sounds like that went out the window

[slimeisacharacter]

so if the new chip doesn't sacrifice any performance, why didn't they use it in the first place?

A few reasons come to mind, first of which is they had a standing contract with the supplier of the old chip or only recently finalized the contract with the supplier of the new chip. Or perhaps this new chip only recently was cleared by whatever authorities monitor product quality control. *shrug*

It might just be draining the customer base's wallet with the more expensive items first, then cutting back, happened before after all. But its not always the only reason.