Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Defective PlayStations 3??? Cell Core Not In Use???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 26, 2006 12:39:17 AM

Hi

Well I was on eBay and just to see the prices of the PS3 I started to watch how they were ending and one of them catch my attention cuz it was called PS3 Non-Defective Version.
So I started reaserching and found that PS3's released from November 17 through Early december were having this problem that 1 of the cores of the Cell Processor wasnt in use while gaming/watching videos/listening music.
Any Playstation 3 released on December 22 and AFTER have this error fixed.

So my question is... What happened here? Is this 100% true? If I would like to get a PS3, how do I know that Im getting the Undefective version? I really need you people to help me out please because I plan to get one of those but I dont want to end up using a "**defective**" PS3 using only 7 of its 8 cores.

Thanks
December 26, 2006 12:43:04 AM

The PS3 only has 7 working cores, they disable one to improve yeilds, and one core is reserved for various OS tasks. so it has 6 working cores for games and stuff.
Related resources
December 26, 2006 1:01:26 AM

Thats what I was talking about

Now, If any soon day I get my PS3, of course I would like the new versions or new revisions (as you wanna call them) with the 8 cores working.

I would only need to know if there is way to find that out. Or maybe is just the samething as the first PS3's and it would only be luck to get one with the actual 8 cores working.

Whatever it is, I will pay attention ;) 

Thanks
December 26, 2006 1:14:40 AM

Quote:

It has a PowerPC-based "Power Processing Element" (PPE) and six accessible 3.2 GHz Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs), a seventh runs in a special mode and is dedicated to OS security, and an eighth disabled to improve production yields.


yeah, one is disabled, your not going to get a PS3 with 8 working cores, they disable one if its defective or not, 7 is what you will get.
December 26, 2006 1:15:06 AM

They all have 1 core disabled on purpose. He's talking out his ass.
December 26, 2006 1:16:33 AM

They only use 7 cores. The ones with 8 cores are being binned for other products. Even if all of the cores were functional they would just disable one of them. So someone is yanking yer chain on that ps3. People will try anything to make some sucker pay more for their hardware, thats a fact.
December 26, 2006 1:17:28 AM

Ok so let say what you are saying is true, then it means this eBay seller wrote that just to make more people bid right?

EDIT: Answered after you guys answered, sorry. Now I understand.

Thanks guys, I was worried to get one "defective" ps3 :D 
December 26, 2006 1:33:35 AM

X360 has a 48 pipe R600 class GPU. PS3 has a 7800 GTX. I'd say that makes all PS3's defective :) 
December 26, 2006 1:46:08 AM

Quote:
X360 has a 48 pipe R600 class GPU. PS3 has a 7800 GTX. I'd say that makes all PS3's defective :) 


I'd say all the current consoles are defective with the 8800gtx.
December 26, 2006 1:47:55 AM

Quote:
X360 has a 48 pipe R600 class GPU. PS3 has a 7800 GTX.
Both of these statements are incorrect... but you can believe whatever you want.
December 26, 2006 1:50:00 AM

Maybe - but you can get a 360, a couple games, and a charge kit for the price of a vid card.
December 26, 2006 2:03:16 AM

but you cant oc the hell out of a xbox 360, or upgrade individual parts when the speed isnt up to par. or install insane case mods to light the thing up so its brighter then the sun.
December 26, 2006 2:41:49 AM

Quote:
but you cant oc the hell out of a xbox 360, or upgrade individual parts when the speed isnt up to par. or install insane case mods to light the thing up so its brighter then the sun.


None of what you just wrote is necessary for consoles. I play games, I don't watch my console.

I watch videos and listen to music, I don't like listening to loud fans or gurgurling water in tubes.

I play my console. When I'm finish I turn it off and do some work, maybe on the computer. I don't sit in front of my computer all of my free time and play games.
December 26, 2006 2:42:26 AM

Of course high end PC technology is going to destroy any game console. That's a given. My point being that Sony really dropped the ball this goround.
December 26, 2006 2:58:19 AM

Dropped the ball? You have to be kidding yourself. How can you justify your comments? Please provide with one, just one example of how Sony has dropped the ball with the PS3. * And please don't bring up rootkits, flamming batteries, PS3 launch titles, disabled Cell cores, or any of that stuff *

I will give you one if your having trouble coming up with one. Sony, along with everyone else, is having trouble producing the blue lasers for the blu-ray drives. If it wasn't for this fact, there would be more consoles in the stores and less of them on Ebay.
December 26, 2006 3:03:57 AM

The PS3 is one of the most over hyped consoles of our time, second only to the PS2.
Quote:

Overall the PS3 just feels disjointed. On the Xbox 360, everything is seamlessly integrated together. So I can be listening to music while I’m playing games on Xbox Live Arcade, or I can send/receive messages to friends back and forth while playing Gears of War. Everything is integrated seamlessly together, and it has been since day 1. In contrast, the PS3 can do one or the other, but not both simultaneously. If I want to message someone for instance, I have to quit the game I'm currently playing.
December 26, 2006 3:22:49 AM

Quote:
Dropped the ball? You have to be kidding yourself. How can you justify your comments? Please provide with one, just one example of how Sony has dropped the ball with the PS3. * And please don't bring up rootkits, flamming batteries, PS3 launch titles, disabled Cell cores, or any of that stuff *

I will give you one if your having trouble coming up with one. Sony, along with everyone else, is having trouble producing the blue lasers for the blu-ray drives. If it wasn't for this fact, there would be more consoles in the stores and less of them on Ebay.


Well, if they didn't try to rush it out for xmas time and given developers a longer look at it they would've had better launch titles.

Also I, for one, do not want to pay 600 dollars for a PS3, unless im looking for a blu-ray player.

I guess time will eventually make up for the launch, but so far the PS3 doesn't look appealing to me at all. It seems like they just tried to out-spec the other consoles in every way possible and forgot about what consoles are about: Games and having fun. For example, you can just look at the cheap copy of the wiimote and see what I mean.
December 26, 2006 3:24:09 AM

You caused a fight because of something OFF TOPIC

I didnt make this to start talking about BEST GAMING SYSTEM just to let you know.
December 26, 2006 3:33:27 AM

alright. argh. i really want to know. what is the ps3's graphics card equal to? cause I really want to know if my card rivals it. I would like to have the confidence that my card is more powerful. I have a x1900xt 512 mb.
December 26, 2006 3:38:52 AM

According to what people say

in the ATI way is a X1800XT

and in the NVIDIA way

a GF 7800GTX

I really dont know if this is true or almost close thats what I heard
December 26, 2006 4:07:37 AM

i wasn't referring to the power of a video card when i was commenting on the PS3. someone posted a comment about Sony dropped the ball by releasing the PS3 too early. as fast as technology moves video cards and consoles are always ahead of the curve. game developers will always figure out a way to make the games looking more interesting. the xbox 360 is a year old and GoW just came out. so don't tell me a one year old console is a piece of useless hardware because the GoW just proved the xbox 360 is still on fire.

dude touched a nerve when he implied in his comment that consoles are outdated and have no functionality because they can't be oc'd, light modded and other bs. even if i were playing games on a computer, i don't stare at my computer in awe thinking gee i love these flashing lights and neon water flowing through my system. my attention is focused on the monitor not the stupid window on the computer case.

its a good thing ms, nintendo and sony staggered the console launches. a year ago xbox 360 was the lastest and greatest. this year the ps3 is the latest and greatest. both of them having great visuals. however, nintendo took a different route with its gameplay. in and of itself it will be a great system.
December 26, 2006 4:21:06 AM

Quote:
Well, if they didn't try to rush it out for xmas time and given developers a longer look at it they would've had better launch titles.


Your comment is garbage and should be placed in it. Afterwords, cover it with newspaper and contain the smell.

How much time do you think developers need? 3 months? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? Ask yourself this question? Why do games for PCs always lag the video card introduction? Is it because AMD ATI and NVidia sends software companies their prototypes by FEDEX and they get lost in transit? Or could it be they have to wait, like everyone else, to receive the final specs on the video cards.

Nub comments like his makes my stomach gurgle like neon water flowing through a computer case. Why is the front of my pants whet?
December 26, 2006 5:43:32 AM

The GPU in the 360 is more powerful than a 7900 series card, and more powerful than ATI's 1900XT. It max fill rate is slower, but it is so much more efficient that is sustains a higher fill rate.

wes
December 26, 2006 5:50:41 AM

Well,

I think Sony could have made better choices with the PS3. The Cell cpu was a bad choice IMO. The Xbox 360 wasn't much better, but better for ease of making games for it. The GPU in the 360 is quite a bit better. It is faster than the 1900XT and 7900gt(x?). The gpu in the PS3 is a close to a 7800GT(x?).
Another thing I don't really like is the proprietary media that is being pushed by Sony again. It might end up being better in the end, and eventually I might like it, but, at this point in time, the cost and benefits of it are nil, and I don't beleive it is needed in the console. It seems like Sony is just using it as marketing and away to try to win the media standard battle, while the consumers lose in the end. Don't get me wrong, both companies are doing it, Sony just has the history of doing it.

One thing I do like about the PS3, is the built in wireless capabilities. But, that is about it.

wes
December 26, 2006 8:00:34 AM

In my opinion, the PC equivalent of a console isn't very relevant at all, they are all about programming. Don't forget the PS2 only has 32 Megabytes of RAM and a 200MHz CPU, but can still produce pretty good graphics.
December 26, 2006 9:15:06 AM

AFAIK, the Cell is being used in a number of devices, not just PS3 (blade servers, supercomputers...). there is a supercomputer being built/planned by BM that is using clusters of fully working (8-core) Cells to achieve a petaflop performance. So my guess is - if a Cell has 8 working cores it goes to the supercomputer/blade server basket, if it has 7 working cores - it goes to PS3 factory. as was stated on this site around half a year ago in an interview with... don't remember, someone from Sony or Toshiba - only a minor part of Cells (~20%) coming out of the production line are good enough for PS3, so the ones with 8-cores running must be "priceless" and I can't believe, they would just waste them like this

links:
Wikipedia - IBM RoadRunner - 1 petaflop hybrid supercomputer, Cells & Opterons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner

however, I'm absolutely sure there was another entry in Wikipedia about Cell in supercomputer, with pictures and clear statement that it would use Cells with all 8 cores working

PS first post, though I've been reading THG forums for a year or so
December 26, 2006 10:17:38 AM

Quote:
The GPU in the 360 is quite a bit better. It is faster than the 1900XT and 7900gt(x?). The gpu in the PS3 is a close to a 7800GT(x?).


The 360 GPU is an ATi chip, maybe X1800 or slightly faster, but developers can use it more efficiently & extract more from it than the PC equivalent because every X360 is the same, so developers know exactly what they're working with.

Yes, the PC has (inevitably) overtaken it in performance, but the X360 did come out over a year ago now.

Also, could someone please tell me why Sony would make an 8-core CPU only to disable one of them? You would think it would be cheaper & easier just to make a 7-core CPU...
December 26, 2006 11:07:20 AM

Quote:
X360 has a 48 pipe R600 class GPU. PS3 has a 7800 GTX.
Both of these statements are incorrect... but you can believe whatever you want.
Yep, he is wrong. Xbox360 has a special GPU that is infact DX10 compatible, making it the first commercial DX10GPU, but it's not some R600. It's designed specially for Xbox360 and is probably missing features and such. The PS3 has the... well, it has something (forget the name) that closely resembles the G70's but is not infact a 7800GTX. Eitherway, graphically, their similar until DX10 comes along en masse. Then, the Xbox360 will pull ahead with far more spectacular effects than what the PS3 can provide.
December 26, 2006 11:49:31 AM

Well,

Sony and IBM are trying to make an 8 core cpu.... but they are having issues with it. It is easy for them to disable a core, and if they just disable a core, it makes it easier for them to actually have cpu's to use since 8 core cell cpu's would be more rare than a 7 core cell. I am sure if yields were great, they would have this issue..... but they aren't.

Plus, some people might be upset if some had 8 and some had 7, so, since the performance is probably the same on either, just kill a core if need be, and slap the cpu in.

Also, the core clock of the 360 GPU might be close to an X1800, but the architecture is so different it can't be compared. The 360 GPU actually outperforms the X1900XTX and the 7900GTX because of the efficiency. It can have 4XFSAA on with no performance hit at all, not due to the programmers, but due to the efficiency of the arch. in comparison to the desktop counter parts.

Did you read any of the article dissecting the tech in the two consoles? dpad gotfrag has a good one.... and there is also another good one floating around.

wes
December 26, 2006 12:00:50 PM

Quote:
X360 has a 48 pipe R600 class GPU. PS3 has a 7800 GTX.
Both of these statements are incorrect... but you can believe whatever you want.
Yep, he is wrong. Xbox360 has a special GPU that is infact DX10 compatible, making it the first commercial DX10GPU, but it's not some R600. It's designed specially for Xbox360 and is probably missing features and such. The PS3 has the... well, it has something (forget the name) that closely resembles the G70's but is not infact a 7800GTX. Eitherway, graphically, their similar until DX10 comes along en masse. Then, the Xbox360 will pull ahead with far more spectacular effects than what the PS3 can provide.

Its not automatically "DX10" because it has unified shaders. There is a really good article on the Xbox 360 CPU and GPU at beyond 3D, you should check it out...

http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/xenos/index.php?p=11

EDIT: I must be tired, lol. Sorry about that... While I agree that RSX is a modified G7x, Xenos is just not a DX10 Part.
December 26, 2006 12:06:31 PM

I don't think he said anything about unified shaders did he?

wes
December 26, 2006 12:09:52 PM

Quote:
I don't think he said anything about unified shaders did he?

wes


Yeah, i guess not. Although that seems to be why everyone thinks Xenos=R600 and Xenos=DX10. When this is just not true.
December 26, 2006 12:50:29 PM

Understood. I do that from time to time as well. At any rate, there are parts of the gpu that could make it DX10 compatable, and there are other aspects that make it not DX10 compatable from what I have read. Either way, it's a pretty damn good gpu for a console.

wes
December 26, 2006 12:54:52 PM

Xenos is somewhere in between DX 9.0 and DX 10; it has some features of DX 10 (ie unified shaders) but it also lacks some (ie geometry shaders)

it is/was codenamed R500
December 26, 2006 12:56:58 PM

Quote:


Did you read any of the article dissecting the tech in the two consoles? dpad gotfrag has a good one.... and there is also another good one floating around.



I don't think I saw that article; I've been unable to get online much recently. Do you have a link at all?

P.S. The most effective form of suicide known to man is to type 'Chuck Norris' into Google and then click ''I'm feeling lucky''.
December 26, 2006 1:42:46 PM

That was a good one man..... did you make that up or find it somewhere... it's the first I've seen it.

wes
December 26, 2006 1:46:46 PM

God why so much hate for the PS3 here... Is it just cause it's not made by MS!? :lol:  No one has the right to say anything bad about the PS3's graphics, check out the latest GT:HD in-game screenshots. You can literaly misake them for real life so none of this Fanboyism plz...

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/messa...
- middle of page.

By the way between PS3 and PC I would say PC wins graphically depending on hardware of course. PC is my favourate gaming machine!
December 26, 2006 2:02:02 PM

Where did you see anyone saying anything bad about the PS3? It is very powerful; however if you ask me it's not actually superior to the Xbox 360 and putting a CELL in it was something of a marketing ploy - "We're not selling an overpriced console; we're selling an UNDERpriced supercomputer!"
December 26, 2006 2:11:31 PM

No not based entirely on this thread. I have seen it quite a bit on the forums though... Look I want to make clear that I don't mean to start a war and I am not a fanboy. I come in peace :) 
December 26, 2006 2:14:59 PM

Quote:
I don't think he said anything about unified shaders did he?

wes


Yeah, i guess not. Although that seems to be why everyone thinks Xenos=R600 and Xenos=DX10. When this is just not true.
Back when everyone was arguing 360 or PS3 before either was released, everything I have read states it is infact DX10 compatible. Does it hit the specifications exactly? Not sure, but from my understanding, it is capable of doing DX10 stuff. Also, I never stated anything about unified shaders.
December 26, 2006 2:27:12 PM

well in terms of launch day performance of both 360 and PS3 there the same, the 360 didn't launch the way it is, Microsoft updated the hell out of it. So to compare the consoles at present is a moot point.

Most games are cross platformed, and since the PS3 just launched, most of its games are cheesy ports that were optimized for the 360, hence the reason they might end up worse on the PS3, it just shows how different the two consoles were built but how similar they perform.

In terms of GPUs theres no doubt in my mind the Xenos (360) is superior to RSX (PS3), but its no way in effect DX10, its hardware wasn't built with DX10 specs. because the specs weren't known when it was made. They had ideas of what DX10 was going to be and they implemented some of them, i like to refer to the Xenos as a DX9.5c compliant card. RSX is rumored to be a G70 derivitive, i think it may be of similar design but entirely different. We need someone to rip apart these consoles on the software and hardware level and tell us what we all need to know.

As for my personal opinion right now i think the PS3 has far greater potential. Come November 2007 we'll see how the PS3 is fairing, and then judging that to the 360 from Nov 2006, its the only way your going to fairly judge these consoles against each other.

Viva la PC gaming
December 26, 2006 2:38:35 PM

Quote:
I don't think he said anything about unified shaders did he?

wes


Yeah, i guess not. Although that seems to be why everyone thinks Xenos=R600 and Xenos=DX10. When this is just not true.
Back when everyone was arguing 360 or PS3 before either was released, everything I have read states it is infact DX10 compatible. Does it hit the specifications exactly? Not sure, but from my understanding, it is capable of doing DX10 stuff. Also, I never stated anything about unified shaders.

Um, did you even look at the Beyond3D link? It doesn't meet DX10 requirements.... It does exceed the DX9 specs but so does the Radeon X1XXX and the Geforce 7 series (possibly even Gefore6 does too) but that doesn't make them DX10 by any means.
December 26, 2006 3:05:33 PM

Quote:
X360 has a 48 pipe R600 class GPU. PS3 has a 7800 GTX.
Both of these statements are incorrect... but you can believe whatever you want.
Yep, he is wrong. Xbox360 has a special GPU that is infact DX10 compatible, making it the first commercial DX10GPU, but it's not some R600. It's designed specially for Xbox360 and is probably missing features and such. The PS3 has the... well, it has something (forget the name) that closely resembles the G70's but is not infact a 7800GTX. Eitherway, graphically, their similar until DX10 comes along en masse. Then, the Xbox360 will pull ahead with far more spectacular effects than what the PS3 can provide.Sigh... Where's Ape when you need him? The GPU in the Xbox360 is NOT a Direct X10 GPU. While it does share many of the characteristics of a Direct X10 GPU, it lacks the ability to use geometry shaders, and runs a version a modified version of Direct X9, however it is slightly more advanced than your standard Direct X9.0C GPU.
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2006 3:08:04 PM

Quote:
I don't think he said anything about unified shaders did he?

wes


Yeah, i guess not. Although that seems to be why everyone thinks Xenos=R600 and Xenos=DX10. When this is just not true.
Back when everyone was arguing 360 or PS3 before either was released, everything I have read states it is infact DX10 compatible. Does it hit the specifications exactly? Not sure, but from my understanding, it is capable of doing DX10 stuff. Also, I never stated anything about unified shaders.

Um, did you even look at the Beyond3D link? It doesn't meet DX10 requirements.... It does exceed the DX9 specs but so does the Radeon X1XXX and the Geforce 7 series (possibly even Gefore6 does too) but that doesn't make them DX10 by any means.


From what I understand, the 360's is almost a DX10 card, but not quite and the PS3 is a 7800 (GTX maybe). From what I've read before, in a statement by some person from nvidia, the PS3's vid card is faster than 2 geforce 6800's. And the 7800GTX did prove that, so logic would point for me that the PS3 IS a 7800GTX.

As for the 360, I haven't read much about it but i think that it'd be quite impossible for it to be a fully working or even compliant to the COMPLETE DX10 specs. Again, using logic, if the 360's vid card is a full DX10 card, then wouldn't it have been wise for ATI to release a DX10 card since they already have the architecture for it?

Does the 360 have a full DX10 card? I doubt it.

Then what is in the 360? Maybe, and only maybe somewhere along the lines of DX9.5 or the next DX for XP, DX9L.



Back on topic, it has been announced way before that only 7 cores of 8 would be working. I think that if one failed, there's a backup one. Else maybe there are simply production issues to address, such as making 8 cores when they need 7 so that in the production process if 1 is faulty they could still roll-out the same board as 7 of them works. Well these are only my speculation.
December 26, 2006 3:28:25 PM

Quote:
I don't think he said anything about unified shaders did he?

wes


Yeah, i guess not. Although that seems to be why everyone thinks Xenos=R600 and Xenos=DX10. When this is just not true.
Back when everyone was arguing 360 or PS3 before either was released, everything I have read states it is infact DX10 compatible. Does it hit the specifications exactly? Not sure, but from my understanding, it is capable of doing DX10 stuff. Also, I never stated anything about unified shaders.

Um, did you even look at the Beyond3D link? It doesn't meet DX10 requirements.... It does exceed the DX9 specs but so does the Radeon X1XXX and the Geforce 7 series (possibly even Gefore6 does too) but that doesn't make them DX10 by any means.


From what I understand, the 360's is almost a DX10 card, but not quite and the PS3 is a 7800 (GTX maybe). From what I've read before, in a statement by some person from nvidia, the PS3's vid card is faster than 2 geforce 6800's. And the 7800GTX did prove that, so logic would point for me that the PS3 IS a 7800GTX.

Then what is in the 360? Maybe, and only maybe somewhere along the lines of DX9.5 or the next DX for XP, DX9L.


I hate to drag this on longer but... the RSX has a bigger die size than the 7800GTX which means that they are in fact different. How they are different we can only speculate at this point...

Also, this is no such thing as DX9.5. Many cards now available have extended capabilities, that doesn't mean they have a higher DX version.
December 26, 2006 3:40:31 PM

Quote:
Also, this is no such thing as DX9.5. Many cards now available have extended capabilities, that doesn't mean they have a higher DX version.


The Xenos is halfway to DX10 but based on DX9.0c. The DX9.5 is just an implied reference to that fact. While yes you can call the x1xxx and 7 series DX9.5 if you want to get technical. Its just a label or inference, its nor right or wrong, and can't be proven either way until Microsoft names it. I name it the same thing in my past although i give it the DX9.5c moniker, its a good way to disprove its strictly DX9 or a DX10 GPU
December 26, 2006 3:40:49 PM

Quote:
X360 has a 48 pipe R600 class GPU. PS3 has a 7800 GTX. I'd say that makes all PS3's defective :) 


LMAO
December 26, 2006 5:00:31 PM

Microsoft has stated very clearly that the Xbox 360 is NOT DX10 compatible.
!