40GB PS3 Includes 90nm Cell, Power Usage Still Lower

While German site Computer Base initially reported the newest 40GB PlayStation 3 SKU would be shipping with a pared down 65nm Cell processor, another German site has confirmed with Sony that this is not the case. Sony told Heise Online that the 40GB model, which debuted in North America on Friday, still includes the 90nm Cell processor.

Despite not having a smaller CPU, the newest PS3 model consumes around 32.5% less power than other PS3 models. The increased efficiency came from different components used in manufacturing the new models, which also explains why some end users were reporting the lesser power consumption as indicative of a new Cell processor.

Sony told Heise Online the 65nm Cell processor would be coming to newly manufactured models in the coming months. Shacknews contacted Sony for comment, but has not yet received a response.

The 65nm Cell CPU was perceived by some as one of the few benefits of the new model, which lacks backward compatibility with PS2 titles, halves the number of USB ports, removes flash memory card slots, and dismisses SACD playback in favor of a $399.99 price point.

Filed Under
From The Chatty
  • reply
    November 5, 2007 5:44 PM

    And I still wouldn't buy it. Even at $299.00 it would not be a "deal". PC is where it is and where it will be.

    • reply
      November 5, 2007 6:18 PM

      PC is a great platform, don't get me wrong, but let me know when it plays all those games that are exclusive to one particular console.

      • reply
        November 5, 2007 6:19 PM

        Such as Super Mario Galaxy on a PC... No thanks.

    • reply
      November 5, 2007 6:19 PM

      That's cool and all, but could a $300 PC push the same power a PS3 pushes?

      • reply
        November 5, 2007 6:36 PM

        No, but a $500 dollar one can easily surpass it. :P But, in reality you speak the truth. The PC is my top gaming platform by far, but I do enjoy the consoles as well. Sadly, out of the 3 consoles the PS3 continues to be the least played due to the lack of games that like to play, R&C being the exception as I just got that yesterday and am enjoying it. Just wish more games (quality games) were available for the PS3 now as I'm sick of hearing "Well, just wait, great games are coming you'll see." We wait, and wait, and wait, delay after delay and then finally one arrives.... and it sucks (Lair) or is average (Heavenly Sword). Oh well, I'm glad that I am fortunate enough to have the other systems because at least they have solid titles coming out on regular (semi-regular for the Wii) basis.

        • reply
          November 5, 2007 7:16 PM

          I don't see how a $500 PC could "easily" surpass a PS3's power. I don't think a PS3 is a great buy right now, but come on.

          • reply
            November 5, 2007 9:54 PM

            Well, I was thinking of more of an upgrade. Like the article on FiringSquad. You upgrade to a system along the lines of the one in that article, I bet you would find it a most capable system that could play any current game at fairly high settings and I'm pretty sure would surpass the PS3's graphical capabilities. Not dissing the PS3 by any means, as I have the 60gb version nor am I saying that you can get an equal performing PC for the same price. Just saying that you do not have to spend $2-3 grand on a PC to equal or surpass the PS3/Xbox 360. It's one of those lame arguments that show up all the time between console fans and PC fans, where the console fans usually state that you have to spend tons of money to play games on the PC whereas the consoles you don't. No, you can't build a good gaming PC from scratch with $500 but you can definitely build one for around $850-$1000. It won't be at the top of the benchmark charts, but it will be very capable and play any game out now and in the near future. Plus you can always improve it later. Either way, I'm fortunate enough to have a good PC and all three consoles so I don't have to worry about it.

            • reply
              November 6, 2007 10:03 AM

              While one can build a decent gaming system for $1000, one will have the problem of not getting smooth framerates in games which come out a year later. Yes, those games might have better graphics, better than anything on any console, when played at the maximum settings, but one's forced to spend more money on upgrades to get a decent gaming experience. Having to play new games at really gimped settings just so one gets a consistently smooth framerate sucks ass. With consoles, you spend money once and you're good for 4-5 years; you won't have to buy upgrades so that you can enjoy the new games.

              Overall, the yearly upkeep of a decent gaming PC is quite a lot higher than investing in consoles. And today's PC hardware is pretty-much worthless in 2 years. Consoles lose their value a lot slower - if you get bored if them you can easily sell them again for only a small loss.

        • reply
          November 5, 2007 9:45 PM

          I stopped reading after I chocked on all the bullshit in your first sentence.

          • reply
            November 5, 2007 9:57 PM

            Sorry you choked. :( Since you didn't read it all, I guess you shouldn't bother reading my response to Remo. ;)

Hello, Meet Lola