they are selling at around a 60 to 100 dollar loss still..

nope still a loss, just not as massive.

the 60 gb was costing them around 600 bucks to produce, the small chip lowered it, but im not sure how much sry

The $40 loss in December 2008, based on last iSuppli estimate abstract (I guess you have to pay them to get the complete papers) is based on October 2008 cost estimates (and it affects units sold in December as obviously Sony started stocking units for Xmas some time before). Being Xmas stocks cleared and stocking smaller during slow seasons, it'quite likely PS3 is already breaking even, components cost drops as times goes by, although die shrinks, the next one still to happen, make it drop more. This said, in EU, thanks to strong € and usually overpriced list price even when € is not so strong, PS3 was most probably breaking even at Xmas and is earning some $ now.
NB All this reasonment assumes iSuppli estimate is near enough to reality, but to Sony advantage is that last time I read a complete iSuppli estimate, they postulated an HDD cost far too high, higher actually than end user price for a single unit at most online stores.

Your post is proven wrong by Sony's official information posted previously in the thread.

ok, some reality check here:

a) Going from 65nm to 45nm, the die size is reduced by about 30% (175 to 120 mm^2) so you get roughly 25% more dies out of your wafer (more dies means more safety area waste). Running a wafer through the fab cost you around $10'000 per wafer and you get about 320 (65nm) or 400 (45nm) dies out of it. So the pure difference in manufacturing cost of a PS3 cell chip is around $5-$15 (times 1.yield differences which number noone ist going to tell you). Now if you go from 65nm to 45nm as a customer (as Sony is one, actually the _only one_ for the cell chip), you pay production costs, not manufacturing costs, as a rule. It takes _a lot_ of money to research and develop and test a 45nm fab line, and you as the customer have to pay for that, too (you don't think the fab throws up a cool $1b for free?). In essence, the savings will be zero for Sony for the intial few million cell chips (until these setup costs are recouped by the manufacturer).

b) The new 45nm dies will be put into the very same chip carrier the 65nm dies use. That's just the way it is, chip carriers are normed (and basically the size is defined by the pin count of the die inside of it). So the geometry inside the PS3 stays the same - until Sony decides to redesign the entire unit. This likely happens when all components have reached their final design stages.

c) Changing heatsinks, vents, or case as a whole leads to an _increase_ in costs for the first batches. That is simple logic since you need new manufacturing tools to make the new stuff. In any case, we are talking cents to a few dollars max for the entire plastic and metal shielding stuff.

So what does Sony save by going from 65nm to 45nm ? The surprise answer is zero, ziltch, nada. Until the development costs are recouped. Once there, the cost savings will be in the order of $30-$50 (for both chips together). And finally, manufacturing a PS3 costs around $350 now (my estimate from industry experience, no sources available).

I agree :P

They both love Michael Jackson and speak in the same way on the forums..

isupply doesnt get their items in bulk though. im also pretty sure they used the retail prices for each item

well with the yen getting a little stronger now it's helping. Since february it has jumped up to 99 yen per dollar, it used to be hovering at 90. They are probably almost breaking even on sales in the US at this rate.

1. how is isupply getting their estimates? im pretty sure its from retail prices of each item. there is no other way of knowing these prices. this would alreadty factor in storage, ratail cut, ect ect on each item. i dont think it factors in bulk pricing either which only benefits sony.

2. in the month of december sony practically lost 100million dollars on HW alone only in NA do to the weak dollar. something which should be done by now.

Shouldn't the RSX shrink to 40nm, though (that's what NVIDIA and AMD are doing to their upcoming GPU's). For the PS3, I think they may go down to 55nm for now.

1) your shipping costs are way to high. the average cost of a 40ft container to america (the most expensive ) is about $4000. if you devide that by the number of ps3s you can fit inside, you will get a more accurate shipping cost.

2) didnt sony sell of the cell shares to ibm or toshiba? if that is the case then sony dont need to wait for recovering costs to get a smaller chip. why would they buy a smaller chip at the same price? besides previous reductions saved money, more than likely further reductions would to.

3) isupply based costs on assumptions and some of the costs seemed a wee bit pricey. everyone knows bulk buying saves money and bulk buying with a +5yr agreement might save more money.

4) the ps3 maybe breaking even in some regions or making a little profit or loss, but you forget to look at the bigger picture. the ps3 devision has merged and the BR costs which were part of R&D costs are making decent profit. a lot of little factors are aiding ps3 costs, savings and or pprofit making.

imo they maybe making little profit on the 160gb, and breaking even on the 60&80gb. after all, something is paying all the sony devs or they wouldnt be on fire this year the way they are. if they were still losing so much money, 2009 wouldn't be shaping up as well as it is so far.