By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - [EurogamerDF] Orbis Unmasked: what to expect from the next-gen PlayStation

ethomaz on 19 January 2013

disolitude said:

1. Thats just not true. 300 mm wafers were used since early 2000s and were used even with 130 nm nodes let alone 90 nm. All one has to do is google "300 mm wafer 90 nm". There is no way anyone as big as nVidia would have used 200mm wafer in 2006 due to cost.

Here is a nice pfd about the switch from 200 to 300 mm wafer technology back from 2003.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CFsQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanobuildings.com%2Fbat%2Fpresentations%2Fdownloads%2FMJamison_Presentation.pdf&ei=MC_7UJGiHoaFrAHjg4Bg&usg=AFQjCNHjo_VGZy63bXSRNf94_U8-9K5h_w&sig2=daGiC7s0TT9EEAoyE5_OoA

2. Why would RSX which is not a very good chip in 2006 have lower yields than 7970m which is the best mobile chip money can buy in 2012? RSX is not the Cell or Nvidia Geforce 200 series processor which were cutting edge.  It's a fairly basic GPU...even if the yield wasn't 90%, it has to be high.

3. Wafer cost figures you're quoting...lets see some links. By searching on Google, I see 300mm wafers price quoted anywhere from $2000 dollars to $10000 dollars.

Bottom line is that the manufacturing cost math doesn't add up if you admit that 300 mm wafer was used, which it was. All this "I'm pretty sure" stuff is just a way to spin arguments in your favor.

A second bottom line is that there is no way that RSX (mediocre chip in 2006) cost 129 dollars while a 7970m (amazing chip in 2013) costs less. If it did, everyone would be making powerful consoles, including Nintendo.

Like I said I'm pretty sure what I was talking about...

Nagasaki 2

- Line #1 produces the PSP MIPS CPU/media engine, 200mm wafers, 90nm on upper level; Process CMOS4

- Line #2 produces the RSX GPU, 200mm wafers, 90nm; Process CMOS4

- Line #(?) will produce Cell chips on 300mm wafers, SOI, and 65nm on Floor 1 of facility; Process 11S

- Line #(?) will produce RSX on 300mm wafers, 65nm on Floor 2 of facility; Process CMOS 5

OTSS joint fab

- Line #1 produces the EE+GS@90nm, 200mm wafers, 90nm; Process CMOS4

- Line #2 produces the RSX GPU, 200mm wafers, 90nm; Process CMOS4

- Line #(?) will produce RSX chips on 300mm wafers, 65nm; Process CMOS5 

http://e-mpire.com/archive/index.php/t-51069.html

I have a party now but just search in google to see what I said is true.

If you have any other doubt I can explain to you tomorrow... thanks. 

PS. You know to move a production line from 200mm to 300mm needs billions dollars... and today chips is way more cheaper because the 28nm.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 20 January 2013
MaulerX said:
Kasz216 said:
MaulerX said:
I don't know. If next Gen lasts 10 years then I can honestly see how in the long run, 8 gigs of slower RAM is going to prevail against 4 gigs of faster RAM. Also, while I'm not sure I believe the Durangos 3 gigs reserved for the OS, but when compared to the alleged 512MB reserved for the Orbis OS, it sends a message that Microsoft wants to make the Durango a multitasking & multimedia powerhouse. I'm also interested to see what's the Durango's "secret sauce" as this article admits they really don't know much about.

Truth is we no longer live in a world where a purely gaming console might not cut it for the masses. We might see a situation where the PS4 finally gets cross game chat, buy the 720 goes ahead with cross game video chat while simultaneously recording your favorite tv show in the background and fast app switching. (just my speculation based on how much RAM and how much RAM is reserved for respective OS's).


This would be more convincing if it wasn't for the fact that the most popular gaming console of this generation was the one that was purley gaming focused.

I mean hell, Wii didn't even have competant online.



That's the thing. Can we honestly say that the Wii was purely gaming focused? Maybe casual gaming focused. You just admitted it didn't have competent online. I'd wager that the masses bought it mostly for the uniqeness that motion controls introduced at the time. I think there was also one year where the Wii was the device most used to watch Netflix (eventually supplanted by the PS3).

Yes in fact, you can say it was purley gaming focused.  The fact that it didn't have competant online makes it MORE gaming focused.  Not less.

the netflix popularity was borne from Wii's popularity, not the other way around.



MaulerX on 20 January 2013
Kasz216 said:
MaulerX said:
Kasz216 said:
MaulerX said:
I don't know. If next Gen lasts 10 years then I can honestly see how in the long run, 8 gigs of slower RAM is going to prevail against 4 gigs of faster RAM. Also, while I'm not sure I believe the Durangos 3 gigs reserved for the OS, but when compared to the alleged 512MB reserved for the Orbis OS, it sends a message that Microsoft wants to make the Durango a multitasking & multimedia powerhouse. I'm also interested to see what's the Durango's "secret sauce" as this article admits they really don't know much about.

Truth is we no longer live in a world where a purely gaming console might not cut it for the masses. We might see a situation where the PS4 finally gets cross game chat, buy the 720 goes ahead with cross game video chat while simultaneously recording your favorite tv show in the background and fast app switching. (just my speculation based on how much RAM and how much RAM is reserved for respective OS's).


This would be more convincing if it wasn't for the fact that the most popular gaming console of this generation was the one that was purley gaming focused.

I mean hell, Wii didn't even have competant online.



That's the thing. Can we honestly say that the Wii was purely gaming focused? Maybe casual gaming focused. You just admitted it didn't have competent online. I'd wager that the masses bought it mostly for the uniqeness that motion controls introduced at the time. I think there was also one year where the Wii was the device most used to watch Netflix (eventually supplanted by the PS3).

Yes in fact, you can say it was purley gaming focused.  The fact that it didn't have competant online makes it MORE gaming focused.  Not less.

the netflix popularity was borne from Wii's popularity, not the other way around.



So you're saying the the introduction of motion controls didn't play a role in the success of the Wii? I'm pretty sure that if the Wii was introduced as a traditional gaming console (sit on the couch with a controller in your hands) it would not have been the success that it was, imho. It offered something beyond gaming, even if that something was just a different way to play your games.

 

All I suggested in my original post was that by reserving so much RAM for the OS (if true), Microsoft might be future proofing their next console and introduce something new down the line (not only in multimedia and multitasking), something like their leaked VR glasses, which combined with Kinect 2.0 might offer a totally unique way of experiencing a game (akin to the Wii).



TheBardsSong on 20 January 2013

This is like basically what people expected the Wii U to do. Current gen games at 1080p and 60fps, although it looks like both struggle to keep a steady 60fps.



ethomaz on 20 January 2013

@disolitude

Sorry I was a little drunk yesterday but what I said is true... but just to exlain better:

- Sony manufacture the RSX in 2006 in two forms... in house and at TSMC (a little more expensive)... in both case Sony used 200mm wafers, 90nm; Process CMOS4 and in future migred to 300mm wafers, 65nm; Process CMOS 5... the 300mm wafers was used just for 65nm, in 90nm the wafer used was the 200mm... the 200mm wafer has a area of 48.7 square inches and the 300mm wafer has a area of 109.6 square inches... the 300mm is 125% bigger than the 200mm... in theory 125% more chips come be manufatured in 300mm wafer.

- The RSX was a new chip never manufactured before so the % of goods choips is lower than a chip already manufactured a years like the 7970m... the only thing can change that is the fact the 7970m used in PS4 be heavly customized.

- The 300mm 28nm wafer is sold by TSMC from $4000 to $5000... the cost of the wafer is defined by the tech used so SOI, High-K, etc... so there is 300mm wafer at $2000 for memory por example but the tech used by TSCM for GPU costs $4000 to $5000 (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20110912192619_TSMC_Reportedly_Hikes_Pricing_on_28nm_Wafers_Due_to_Increased_Demand.html). It's harder to know how much costed the 300mm wafer in 2006 but I know the 300mm 65nm wafer used in GT200 custed ~$8000.

So if use the maths with a 200mm 90nm wafer you can reach near that $129 of the RSX in 2006... so my maths was not wrong just the chips today is way more chepear than in 2006... just the migration to 300mm 65nm wafer made Sony cute the price of the RSX from $129 to $58 (http://www.gizmag.com/sony-losing-money-playstation-3/10617/)... small chip (65nm), more space to manufacture (300mm), better process... voila the cost was sliced by more than a half.

Just another example to you...

AMD Windsor (X2+):
90nm, 200mm Wafer
219 mm^2 Die
= 113 Dies per Wafer
= 69.54% Yield
 = 79 Usable Dies per Wafer

That's the number of usable chips in a 90nm, 200mm Wafer (the same than RSX) for the AMD Windsor... the size of the chips are close (200 to 219mm^2)... a CPU is more easy to manufature than a GPU and the process have just a 70% of the good chips.

Now we need to get what the cost of a 90nm, 200mm Wafer for GPU from TSMC in 2006 and you have your number... add $5-10 for NVIDIA royalties and $10-20 for the TSMC if the chip was manufactured by TSMC (Sony used both... in house no third costs... and TSMC $10-20 costs).

I'm trying to find the price of a  90nm, 200mm Wafer for GPUs in 2006.

Anyway for the PS3 costs the Cell + RSX accounted per less than 25% of the total cost ($800)... the problem was the others components mainly the BD drive (over $200 I guess).

The price you talked here in this thread for CPU, GPU is surreal ... I can't see a new custom chip today costing more than $70 (with royalties and TSMC added) with the 28nm, 300mm wafer... it's just impossible in today market.



Around the Network
ninjablade on 20 January 2013

its pretty clear now ps3 will be the most powerful console by far nextgen, and priced the same as xbox 720, while sony set out to make hardware for gaming at a affordable price, microsoft, made sacrifices for kinect and the os, you can clearly see that by the choice of 8gb of ddr3 which is not ideal for gaming.



adriane23 on 20 January 2013
KillerMan said:
Turkish said:
I think neither the PS4 and 720 will have laptop components. I expect both consoles to be a powerhouse, I don't care and don't need a green console, my 650watt pc amuses me.


7900 GT: Pretty much the GPU of PS3 and high end GPU of its time


Geforce 680GTX: Modern high end GPU


There is your answer why we don't get high end GPUs anymore in consoles.  We already had heat problems with this gen consoles...

R.I.P. to my original Fat PS3. *Poors vodka on carpet*



I am the Playstation Avenger.

   

ethomaz on 20 January 2013

The company has more laughs in this semiconductor market is Intel.

- Better tech (3-D Tri-Gate)
- Better process (less "bad" chips)
- Cheaper process (22nm)
- In house production (no third costs)

I think the most expensive CPU from Intel costs less than $30 to be manufactured in 22nm, 300mm wafer and the final producted is sold by $300-900... so the company have a lot of money to spent in R&D and the company always continue way ahead any other in semiconductor process.

And the AMD tried to follow that pace for a while and nearly bankrupted .

No one match Intel in terms of manufacture costs.

The Atom should cost less than $5 for Intel... maybe $1 each chip.



disolitude on 21 January 2013
ethomaz said:

@disolitude

Sorry I was a little drunk yesterday but what I said is true... but just to exlain better:

- Sony manufacture the RSX in 2006 in two forms... in house and at TSMC (a little more expensive)... in both case Sony used 200mm wafers, 90nm; Process CMOS4 and in future migred to 300mm wafers, 65nm; Process CMOS 5... the 300mm wafers was used just for 65nm, in 90nm the wafer used was the 200mm... the 200mm wafer has a area of 48.7 square inches and the 300mm wafer has a area of 109.6 square inches... the 300mm is 125% bigger than the 200mm... in theory 125% more chips come be manufatured in 300mm wafer.

- The RSX was a new chip never manufactured before so the % of goods choips is lower than a chip already manufactured a years like the 7970m... the only thing can change that is the fact the 7970m used in PS4 be heavly customized.

- The 300mm 28nm wafer is sold by TSMC from $4000 to $5000... the cost of the wafer is defined by the tech used so SOI, High-K, etc... so there is 300mm wafer at $2000 for memory por example but the tech used by TSCM for GPU costs $4000 to $5000 (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20110912192619_TSMC_Reportedly_Hikes_Pricing_on_28nm_Wafers_Due_to_Increased_Demand.html). It's harder to know how much costed the 300mm wafer in 2006 but I know the 300mm 65nm wafer used in GT200 custed ~$8000.

So if use the maths with a 200mm 90nm wafer you can reach near that $129 of the RSX in 2006... so my maths was not wrong just the chips today is way more chepear than in 2006... just the migration to 300mm 65nm wafer made Sony cute the price of the RSX from $129 to $58 (http://www.gizmag.com/sony-losing-money-playstation-3/10617/)... small chip (65nm), more space to manufacture (300mm), better process... voila the cost was sliced by more than a half.

Just another example to you...

AMD Windsor (X2+):
90nm, 200mm Wafer
219 mm^2 Die
= 113 Dies per Wafer
= 69.54% Yield
 = 79 Usable Dies per Wafer

That's the number of usable chips in a 90nm, 200mm Wafer (the same than RSX) for the AMD Windsor... the size of the chips are close (200 to 219mm^2)... a CPU is more easy to manufature than a GPU and the process have just a 70% of the good chips.

Now we need to get what the cost of a 90nm, 200mm Wafer for GPU from TSMC in 2006 and you have your number... add $5-10 for NVIDIA royalties and $10-20 for the TSMC if the chip was manufactured by TSMC (Sony used both... in house no third costs... and TSMC $10-20 costs).

I'm trying to find the price of a  90nm, 200mm Wafer for GPUs in 2006.

Anyway for the PS3 costs the Cell + RSX accounted per less than 25% of the total cost ($800)... the problem was the others components mainly the BD drive (over $200 I guess).

The price you talked here in this thread for CPU, GPU is surreal ... I can't see a new custom chip today costing more than $70 (with royalties and TSMC added) with the 28nm, 300mm wafer... it's just impossible in today market.


I will admit that you've illustrated your points very well and have some sources to back them up...

Moving forward I will adopt the wait and see approach moving forward.  If PS4 comes out with a powerful 7900m like GPU and iSupply or whoever provides the cost estimate for Sony, we will have an idea what the licensing and manufacturing cost for these GPU's are.



ethomaz on 21 January 2013

disolitude said:

I will admit that you've illustrated your points very well and have some sources to back them up...

Moving forward I will adopt the wait and see approach moving forward.  If PS4 comes out with a powerful 7900m like GPU and iSupply or whoever provides the cost estimate for Sony, we will have an idea what the licensing and manufacturing cost for these GPU's are.

You saw this table mostly chips here use the 40nm process... the 28nm process is even cheaper.