Playstation 3 to get 45nm Cell processor

In an interview with The Guardian, Sony Europe's President David Reevers has revealed that Sony is planning to implement 45nm Cell processors into their Playstation 3's, around the middle of the year.

Why is this important? First and foremost, it'll help to get the price of the Playstation 3 down. This is important in today's economy, as Sony announced third-quarter losses of £141m, and they need to get profits back up. Reeves stated, "We're always looking at ways to reduce costs, replacing the current 65 nanometre Cell chip with a 45 nanometre one probably in middle of year. But will it be anything as off-strategy as releasing a PS3 with a DVD rather than a Blu-ray drive? I doubt it."

This is a good step for cost cutting, but it's also good for the users of the Playstation 3. How so? A smaller nanometer CPU means lower power consumption, as well as less heat produced. Both are very good things, and should help move some more Playstations into the hands of customers.

The Guardian certainly doesn't forget the Playstation 3 is still doing well, as they note "the success of [the] PlayStation Network, which overhauled the massive headstart of Xbox Live to amass 17.5 million users, 55% of all PlayStation owners, increasing revenues by 200% in 2008".

Mid-2009 should be a good time for those looking purchase a Playstation 3.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Don't expect Android's 'Cupcake' update

Next Story

Microsoft releasing 4 security patches on Tuesday

31 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

If they really want these systems to come off the shelves then bring back full hardware backwards compatibility and slash the price by $100. Then I will buy one. So far the only reason I havent bought one was because they just havent had any games worth getting to me.

I recently went out and purchased a new SCPH-90001 PlayStation 2 system. I got tired of Sony's crap with the $600 system, the arrogance of the company, the removing of backwards compatibility, etc.

I can enjoy all my games for many more years without worrying about my old fat PS2's drive going out.

I'll take another look at the PS3 when it can play my mountain of PS2 games without having to spend more than $200 on it or looking for a used one on eBay.

Please, PLEASE make this one have some backwards compatability with PS1\2 games.
This would be a dream come true then and I would DEFINITELY buy one!!!

este said,
Please, PLEASE make this one have some backwards compatability with PS1\2 games.
This would be a dream come true then and I would DEFINITELY buy one!!!

I'd just be happy if it remains natively backwards compatible with PS3 games, the PS3 was a shot in the foot by requiring additional hardware for PS2 game support.

maybe after two years , when sony have moved both cpu and Rsx to 32nm .
we would see slim ps3

on the side news
i heard about a real possibly having slim'ed version of 360 with Valhalla revison [a 45nm shrink , which happen to get gpu and cpu in one package/die ]

Slimmer consoles are always built like crap. Flimsy and too thin... original full sized designs are my preference. I thought I read somewhere that this cost saving revision of the PS3 was going to re-obtain backwards compatibility with PS2 titles. Even if that never happens, I wouldn't care... I mean come on, why would you spend $400 on a console just to play old outdated games? Forward thinking is better in this regard... stick to it Sony! Next time you come out with a console, make the damn architecture easier for developers to harness so we can all quit hearing them complain about what a pain in the a#! the system is.

That's kind of an arrogant comment. What about people that missed some of the earlier games in a series. There are some PS2 games I'd like to play but I sure as hell am not going to run out and buy a PS2 in order to do that. Why waste that money.

plexdude said,
Slimmer consoles are always built like crap. Flimsy and too thin... original full sized designs are my preference. I thought I read somewhere that this cost saving revision of the PS3 was going to re-obtain backwards compatibility with PS2 titles. Even if that never happens, I wouldn't care... I mean come on, why would you spend $400 on a console just to play old outdated games? Forward thinking is better in this regard... stick to it Sony! Next time you come out with a console, make the damn architecture easier for developers to harness so we can all quit hearing them complain about what a pain in the a#! the system is.

so true on the slimmer consoles , ps2 slim version looks to fragile compared to the original version

about playing outdated games , well certain games are still being released for ps2 only and there isnt a ps3 version so thats a good reason and ofc there are classics that people love to play ( and please dont say use the ps2 , takes too much space having a ps2 and a ps3 :P )

I don't see how a lot of people arriving at the hopes for a slimmer PS3 hardware in the future. It's merely a die-shrink. You didn't see a shrink in the size of a PC when Intel and AMD moved from 65nm to 45nm. It would require a platform redesign and re-engineer and at this time it's not worth the resources at this time to make such a revision on this large of a scale.

coolvi said,
I don't see how a lot of people arriving at the hopes for a slimmer PS3 hardware in the future. It's merely a die-shrink. You didn't see a shrink in the size of a PC when Intel and AMD moved from 65nm to 45nm. It would require a platform redesign and re-engineer and at this time it's not worth the resources at this time to make such a revision on this large of a scale.

Because computers have industry specified size standards they have to comply with to have universal hardware support. PlayStation 3 is a closed hardware platform architecture and design so can be adjusted whenever they wish without too much cost or burden. But at the moment I just don't think there's a need to shrink the entire size and also don't believe it's possible with RSX still sitting on 90nm/65nm size which still requires the large HSF unit within which takes up majority of the space.

even at 45nm you won't see a slim ps3 in terms of the drastic size decrease in the slim ps2. in the end i don't think we'll see a slim ps3 at all for a while at least until RSX is put down to 45nm too.

As for ps3 with just a dvd drive it would only cost about as much as xbox 360 arcade bundle based on hardware prices.

But will it be anything as off-strategy as releasing a PS3 with a DVD rather than a Blu-ray drive? I doubt it."

Why do people always bring up the idea of a PS3 with no Blu-Ray drive? it's like saying, MS should release a 360 with no DVD drive cause it will make it even cheaper! it's ridiculous.

Well it's not really the same as that :P But yeah it's a stupid remark, PS3 games come on Blu Ray discs, it's not just about movies.

110% absolutely not possible and not happening.

Audioboxer said,
Well it's not really the same as that :P But yeah it's a stupid remark, PS3 games come on Blu Ray discs, it's not just about movies.

110% absolutely not possible and not happening.


Yeah I know, I just mean it would be kinda usless having a PS3 that can't play games but you got what I meant anyway, so all is good.

This is a good step for cost cutting, but it's also good for the users of the Playstation 3. How so? A smaller nanometer CPU means lower power consumption, as well as less heat produced. Both are very good things, and should help move some more Playstations into the hands of customers.

Hmmm..45nm means small gate length means more dies per wafer means more margin assuming the yields remain the same. To save even more move to even larger wafer size.

Hopefully this is the year Sony released a slimmed down PS3. At this point i'm holding off for that before taking the plunge.

Oh wow, they bring up Sonys borked PSN user numbers. Wasn't there already an older article about the difference in how Sony and MS count their online users last month?

GP007 said,
Oh wow, they bring up Sonys borked PSN user numbers. Wasn't there already an older article about the difference in how Sony and MS count their online users last month?

Numbers are not borked... Hope I don't need to explain this again.

PSN accounts are available for the PS3, PSP and on the PC. Sony counts numbers from all these areas as there's no such thing as PS3 PSN account, or a PSP PSN account, it's just a PSN account that is universal on any Sony device that supports it.

Anyway, 45nm/45nm will be interesting, it could lead to a slim PS3 - But fat chance of that happening for another year or so. Best thing realistically is it will help aid price cuts.

haha there won't be a smaller PS3, very unlikely. I don't think it would be smart for them to remove the fans from that.

And that's why it's borked, Not only does it cover 3 devices, accounts don't expire. MS already talked about it, XBL that also has 17mil etc counts individual active members. And they also get rid of inactive accounts after 6 months.

GP007 said,
And that's why it's borked, Not only does it cover 3 devices, accounts don't expire. MS already talked about it, XBL that also has 17mil etc counts individual active members. And they also get rid of inactive accounts after 6 months.

PSN doest not = Live. They are different services spanning different devices.

Stop using the numbers as some sort of e-penis war between who is better.

Sony can't help the fact they have two devices supporting PSN [excluding PC], where as MS have one supporting Live.

Audioboxer said,
PSN doest not = Live. They are different services spanning different devices.

Stop using the numbers as some sort of e-penis war between who is better.

Sony can't help the fact they have two devices supporting PSN [excluding PC], where as MS have one supporting Live.


It should be pointed out that GP007 did not draw a comparison between PSN and XBL, the article did:
The Guardian said,
The Guardian certainly doesn't forget the Playstation 3 is still doing well, as they note "the success of [the] PlayStation Network, which overhauled the massive headstart of Xbox Live to amass 17.5 million users, 55% of all PlayStation owners, increasing revenues by 200% in 2008".

It seems that the article glazed over your fact that the PSN covers three different devices to XBL's one. I'd say the e-peen war was started by the author of the article. GP007 was merely responding to it.

Nice try though.

Divide Overflow said,
Audioboxer said,
PSN doest not = Live. They are different services spanning different devices.

Stop using the numbers as some sort of e-penis war between who is better.

Sony can't help the fact they have two devices supporting PSN [excluding PC], where as MS have one supporting Live.


It should be pointed out that GP007 did not draw a comparison between PSN and XBL, the article did:


It seems that the article glazed over your fact that the PSN covers three different devices to XBL's one. I'd say the e-peen war was started by the author of the article. GP007 was merely responding to it.

Nice try though.

Oh wow, they bring up Sonys borked PSN user numbers. Wasn't there already an older article about the difference in how Sony and MS count their online users last month?

And that's why it's borked, Not only does it cover 3 devices, accounts don't expire. MS already talked about it, XBL that also has 17mil etc counts individual active members. And they also get rid of inactive accounts after 6 months.

Yeah, no comparison... putting aside him going on about how MS count Live figures, and it therefore means Sony's numbers are borked just because they have PSN over 2 main devices, with the PC for forum/blog use.

It's true the article doen't break down what "PSN users" means, but if you only think the PS3 uses PSN then that's something you need to learn about.

GP007 said,
And that's why it's borked, Not only does it cover 3 devices, accounts don't expire. MS already talked about it, XBL that also has 17mil etc counts individual active members. And they also get rid of inactive accounts after 6 months.

in order to play GFWL titles i had to sign up for an account on xbox.com on my PC.

do you have proof that my account would not have been included in Microsofts totals?

TRC said,
Nope. Also in addition to lower cost the chips should run cooler and use less power so it's good for everyone.

Well said. They make the same chip, only using a smaller manufacturing process. Better in every way essentially.