PS3 101: New user's guide to the PS3 (ask questions here -- TMK is on duty)
- Thread starter SteveMcQ
- Start date
CAGIronMan
CAGiversary!
What games:
1) Should I definitely pick up
2) Rent
3) Completely ignore
for the Ps3?
1) Should I definitely pick up
2) Rent
3) Completely ignore
for the Ps3?
Dream to Dream
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
[quote name='CAGIronMan']What games:
1) Should I definitely pick up
2) Rent
3) Completely ignore
for the Ps3?[/quote]
1. Ratchet and Clank Future, Warhawk, Resistance, Uncharted
2. Heavenly Sword, Motorstorm, Folklore
3. Lair (more frustrating than it's worth)
1) Should I definitely pick up
2) Rent
3) Completely ignore
for the Ps3?[/quote]
1. Ratchet and Clank Future, Warhawk, Resistance, Uncharted
2. Heavenly Sword, Motorstorm, Folklore
3. Lair (more frustrating than it's worth)
[quote name='Wolfpup']The reverse is of course also true. No matter how much you wish it were so, a 50 million transistor chip doesn't cost much money. Obviously it adds up in a product where they try to shave even a few cents here or there, but this is not an expensive part.[/quote]
Sony claims otherwise. Maybe they're lying. Maybe they don't know. But I'll take their word over yours.
[quote name='Wolfpup'] The only thing that should be needed is the PS2-on-a-chip. There's no reason to include the rest of that, and I'd be shocked if Sony ever included any of it.[/quote]
This is the PS2-on-a-chip:
Note the two RDRAM chips right above the EE+GS. Notice how much they look like the two RDRAM chips above the EE+GS on the PS3s mainboard:
Also notice these two chips and buzzer in the upper-left hand corner of the PS3's systemboard:
which are also part of the PS2 support. Basically the entire left quarter-third of the board is backward compatibility. Simply switching the EE to emulation drastically cuts down the die size of the main PS2 part (because it's just the GS), eliminates 3 other midsize chips, a ton of traces, and dozens of other associated chips and components:
Notice how much simpler and cleaner the upper-left quadrant got. Eliminating BC completely enables them to substantially reduce the size of the board, leaving them with this:
Are you starting to understand? Hardware BC is NEVER coming back.
Sony claims otherwise. Maybe they're lying. Maybe they don't know. But I'll take their word over yours.
[quote name='Wolfpup'] The only thing that should be needed is the PS2-on-a-chip. There's no reason to include the rest of that, and I'd be shocked if Sony ever included any of it.[/quote]
This is the PS2-on-a-chip:
Note the two RDRAM chips right above the EE+GS. Notice how much they look like the two RDRAM chips above the EE+GS on the PS3s mainboard:
Also notice these two chips and buzzer in the upper-left hand corner of the PS3's systemboard:
which are also part of the PS2 support. Basically the entire left quarter-third of the board is backward compatibility. Simply switching the EE to emulation drastically cuts down the die size of the main PS2 part (because it's just the GS), eliminates 3 other midsize chips, a ton of traces, and dozens of other associated chips and components:
Notice how much simpler and cleaner the upper-left quadrant got. Eliminating BC completely enables them to substantially reduce the size of the board, leaving them with this:
Are you starting to understand? Hardware BC is NEVER coming back.
The 7th Number
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
Does the PS3 come with an HDMI cord?
archibishopthedoge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 139 (100%)
[quote name='The 7th Number']Does the PS3 come with an HDMI cord?[/quote]
Nope. Blockbuster has a package deal where you can get one with an HDMI cord, some crappy Blu Ray movie, Motorstorm, Blu Ray remote and 20 weeks of rentals for $599.
I ended up getting a 40 GB this past Monday and am loving it so far. I just ended up not giving a crap about BC.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002L5R78
I have this for an HDMI cord and it works brilliantly with the PS3. I initially got it for my standalone DVD player, but flopped it over to the PS3 on Monday when I first hooked it up, and it works flawlessly. Can't beat $3
Nope. Blockbuster has a package deal where you can get one with an HDMI cord, some crappy Blu Ray movie, Motorstorm, Blu Ray remote and 20 weeks of rentals for $599.
I ended up getting a 40 GB this past Monday and am loving it so far. I just ended up not giving a crap about BC.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002L5R78
I have this for an HDMI cord and it works brilliantly with the PS3. I initially got it for my standalone DVD player, but flopped it over to the PS3 on Monday when I first hooked it up, and it works flawlessly. Can't beat $3
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='geko29']Sony claims otherwise. Maybe they're lying. Maybe they don't know. But I'll take their word over yours.
This is the PS2-on-a-chip:
Note the two RDRAM chips right above the EE+GS. Notice how much they look like the two RDRAM chips above the EE+GS on the PS3s mainboard:
Also notice these two chips and buzzer in the upper-left hand corner of the PS3's systemboard:
which are also part of the PS2 support. Basically the entire left quarter-third of the board is backward compatibility. Simply switching the EE to emulation drastically cuts down the die size of the main PS2 part (because it's just the GS), eliminates 3 other midsize chips, a ton of traces, and dozens of other associated chips and components:
Notice how much simpler and cleaner the upper-left quadrant got. Eliminating BC completely enables them to substantially reduce the size of the board, leaving them with this:
Are you starting to understand? Hardware BC is NEVER coming back.[/QUOTE]Yeah, those are the pictures I try to show everyone. When you add the cost of the components, and manufacture them in the millions, it definitely saves Sony a lot of money. One reason why Sony had massive PS3 loses early on was because of how expensive the PS3 was to produce, and the newer models (especially 40GB) allows them to lose very little. The only way Sony would have hardware BC is if people were willing to pay $600+ for a PS3, and consumers showed they would not, so it had to go away.
This is the PS2-on-a-chip:
Note the two RDRAM chips right above the EE+GS. Notice how much they look like the two RDRAM chips above the EE+GS on the PS3s mainboard:
Also notice these two chips and buzzer in the upper-left hand corner of the PS3's systemboard:
which are also part of the PS2 support. Basically the entire left quarter-third of the board is backward compatibility. Simply switching the EE to emulation drastically cuts down the die size of the main PS2 part (because it's just the GS), eliminates 3 other midsize chips, a ton of traces, and dozens of other associated chips and components:
Notice how much simpler and cleaner the upper-left quadrant got. Eliminating BC completely enables them to substantially reduce the size of the board, leaving them with this:
Are you starting to understand? Hardware BC is NEVER coming back.[/QUOTE]Yeah, those are the pictures I try to show everyone. When you add the cost of the components, and manufacture them in the millions, it definitely saves Sony a lot of money. One reason why Sony had massive PS3 loses early on was because of how expensive the PS3 was to produce, and the newer models (especially 40GB) allows them to lose very little. The only way Sony would have hardware BC is if people were willing to pay $600+ for a PS3, and consumers showed they would not, so it had to go away.
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
[quote name='geko29']Sony claims otherwise. Maybe they're lying. Maybe they don't know. But I'll take their word over yours.[/quote]
Why? Look at the Playstation 2's design. How much extra hardware is needed to support the PS1? The only reason they'd need to include that much extra "stuff" is if they didn't do a very good job integrating it. There's no need to include RAM and all those support chips. It's going to take some fancy engineering, but Sony of all companies can pull it off.
In the medium term there won't even be a reason to include a physically seperate chip. Had it been design right (and it's still possible for them to do a better job of it) they should only need a single extra chip, and that chip can become part of the PS3's CPU as time goes on.
The only way I'd agree with you is we say it never went away. The 80GB model *IS* coming back, and it's the model I intend to buy later this year.
Why? Look at the Playstation 2's design. How much extra hardware is needed to support the PS1? The only reason they'd need to include that much extra "stuff" is if they didn't do a very good job integrating it. There's no need to include RAM and all those support chips. It's going to take some fancy engineering, but Sony of all companies can pull it off.
In the medium term there won't even be a reason to include a physically seperate chip. Had it been design right (and it's still possible for them to do a better job of it) they should only need a single extra chip, and that chip can become part of the PS3's CPU as time goes on.
The only way I'd agree with you is we say it never went away. The 80GB model *IS* coming back, and it's the model I intend to buy later this year.
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
[quote name='The Mana Knight']Yeah, those are the pictures I try to show everyone. When you add the cost of the components, and manufacture them in the millions, it definitely saves Sony a lot of money. One reason why Sony had massive PS3 loses early on was because of how expensive the PS3 was to produce, and the newer models (especially 40GB) allows them to lose very little. The only way Sony would have hardware BC is if people were willing to pay $600+ for a PS3, and consumers showed they would not, so it had to go away.[/QUOTE]
But it HASN'T gone away.
But it HASN'T gone away.
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='Wolfpup']But it HASN'T gone away.[/QUOTE]I'm referring to the original hardware BC of the 20/60GB. It will never come back. 80GB which has isn't a complete surprise, but still doesn't play AS many PS2 games as the 20/60GB.
[quote name='Wolfpup']Why? Look at the Playstation 2's design. How much extra hardware is needed to support the PS1? The only reason they'd need to include that much extra "stuff" is if they didn't do a very good job integrating it. There's no need to include RAM and all those support chips. It's going to take some fancy engineering, but Sony of all companies can pull it off. [/quote]They still need it because PS2 games were designed to run off of it. By running off of a different RAM or whatever, could create problems since that wasn't what the hardware was designed for. The way to get it to is by using complete software emulation, but it's just not ready.
[quote name='Wolfpup']Why? Look at the Playstation 2's design. How much extra hardware is needed to support the PS1? The only reason they'd need to include that much extra "stuff" is if they didn't do a very good job integrating it. There's no need to include RAM and all those support chips. It's going to take some fancy engineering, but Sony of all companies can pull it off. [/quote]They still need it because PS2 games were designed to run off of it. By running off of a different RAM or whatever, could create problems since that wasn't what the hardware was designed for. The way to get it to is by using complete software emulation, but it's just not ready.
Any time you add a chip, various capacitors and resistors are still needed. Chips do not work with zero components (or well most). From the way you are talking, the only way for Sony to eliminate most chips is to do a 100% software emulation, but like I said, right now it's not possible, but in the future it should be.
[quote name='Wolfpup']Why? Look at the Playstation 2's design. How much extra hardware is needed to support the PS1?[/quote]
The PS1 processor--square chip in the upper left-hand corner--the RAM chip above it, and some other minor associated hardware. Contrary to your inference, it isn't integrated into the "PS2-on-12-chips". It's a wholly separate set of hardware soldered right onto the board. Just like it is on the PS3. Look in the lower left corner, and you'll see the PS1 processor, some RAM, and associated chips. This carries through all the way to the 40GB board, where it is moved and rearranged slightly, but all still there.
[quote name='Wolfpup']The only reason they'd need to include that much extra "stuff" is if they didn't do a very good job integrating it. There's no need to include RAM and all those support chips. It's going to take some fancy engineering, but Sony of all companies can pull it off.
In the medium term there won't even be a reason to include a physically seperate chip. Had it been design right (and it's still possible for them to do a better job of it) they should only need a single extra chip, and that chip can become part of the PS3's CPU as time goes on.[/quote]
If it were feasible, they would have done it. Why? They produce tens of millions of PS2s every year, any substantial cost savings would be worth the development cost--PS3 cost savings would be pure gravy. But for some reason they haven't done it......
If they could go back to 1996 and design the architecture of the EE/GS differently, then yes, they could definitely do away with the support chips. They can't do it now, because they already have a HIGHLY proprietary architecture that's incompatible with pretty much everything else. That's why it has to have the RAM--the EE was designed to interface directly with RDRAM without the use of an external memory controller. RDRAM is completely incompatible with every other type of RAM, so you can't just say "use this RAM here and we won't tell anybody". As it is, they already had to partially redesign the PS2 southbridge (the version in the PS3 has a different part # than the one in the PS2, despite all other chips being identical), just to allow the GS to output to the RSX. If it were so easy to repackage everything into a single chip when they were redesigning the southbridge, don't you think they would have done it? Why don't you design it for them, if you think it's so simple? You seem to know more about electronics architecture than they do....
[quote name='Wolfpup'] The only way I'd agree with you is we say it never went away. The 80GB model *IS* coming back, and it's the model I intend to buy later this year.[/quote]
The ones they pulled from the channel are coming back into the channel in June, true. What I meant was that Sony will never again PRODUCE a PS3 with hardware BC. Even the ones coming back these don't have full BC as it is, but the vastly cost-reduced software/GS combo that eliminated a lot of hardware (and cost). I think you knew all of that.
Obviously they're not going to crush the ones they've already built. But glad to hear that finally after all of your hand-wringing about how "full hardware backwards compatibility is the only acceptable solution", you've decided to settle for software BC for 60-70% of PS2 titles, and plan to actually buy one this time when they're briefly available. I look forward to June.
The PS1 processor--square chip in the upper left-hand corner--the RAM chip above it, and some other minor associated hardware. Contrary to your inference, it isn't integrated into the "PS2-on-12-chips". It's a wholly separate set of hardware soldered right onto the board. Just like it is on the PS3. Look in the lower left corner, and you'll see the PS1 processor, some RAM, and associated chips. This carries through all the way to the 40GB board, where it is moved and rearranged slightly, but all still there.
[quote name='Wolfpup']The only reason they'd need to include that much extra "stuff" is if they didn't do a very good job integrating it. There's no need to include RAM and all those support chips. It's going to take some fancy engineering, but Sony of all companies can pull it off.
In the medium term there won't even be a reason to include a physically seperate chip. Had it been design right (and it's still possible for them to do a better job of it) they should only need a single extra chip, and that chip can become part of the PS3's CPU as time goes on.[/quote]
If it were feasible, they would have done it. Why? They produce tens of millions of PS2s every year, any substantial cost savings would be worth the development cost--PS3 cost savings would be pure gravy. But for some reason they haven't done it......
If they could go back to 1996 and design the architecture of the EE/GS differently, then yes, they could definitely do away with the support chips. They can't do it now, because they already have a HIGHLY proprietary architecture that's incompatible with pretty much everything else. That's why it has to have the RAM--the EE was designed to interface directly with RDRAM without the use of an external memory controller. RDRAM is completely incompatible with every other type of RAM, so you can't just say "use this RAM here and we won't tell anybody". As it is, they already had to partially redesign the PS2 southbridge (the version in the PS3 has a different part # than the one in the PS2, despite all other chips being identical), just to allow the GS to output to the RSX. If it were so easy to repackage everything into a single chip when they were redesigning the southbridge, don't you think they would have done it? Why don't you design it for them, if you think it's so simple? You seem to know more about electronics architecture than they do....
[quote name='Wolfpup'] The only way I'd agree with you is we say it never went away. The 80GB model *IS* coming back, and it's the model I intend to buy later this year.[/quote]
The ones they pulled from the channel are coming back into the channel in June, true. What I meant was that Sony will never again PRODUCE a PS3 with hardware BC. Even the ones coming back these don't have full BC as it is, but the vastly cost-reduced software/GS combo that eliminated a lot of hardware (and cost). I think you knew all of that.
Obviously they're not going to crush the ones they've already built. But glad to hear that finally after all of your hand-wringing about how "full hardware backwards compatibility is the only acceptable solution", you've decided to settle for software BC for 60-70% of PS2 titles, and plan to actually buy one this time when they're briefly available. I look forward to June.
aznguyen316
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 49 (100%)
damn wtf is all this arguing about haha
what I want to know is about the 60gb vs the new 40gb is hardware failure problems. I heard the 40gb has different fan locations, quieter etc. Does it run cooler? It has a smaller chipset in it right? I'm debating on getting a used 60gb from gamefunk or a brand new 40gb.. I'm not HUGE into BC as I sold off all my PS2 games but I guess I'd like to have it just cuz hah as for the HDD size, no concern I'm not afraid to swap out for a bigger HDD in near future.
what I want to know is about the 60gb vs the new 40gb is hardware failure problems. I heard the 40gb has different fan locations, quieter etc. Does it run cooler? It has a smaller chipset in it right? I'm debating on getting a used 60gb from gamefunk or a brand new 40gb.. I'm not HUGE into BC as I sold off all my PS2 games but I guess I'd like to have it just cuz hah as for the HDD size, no concern I'm not afraid to swap out for a bigger HDD in near future.
My parents' 40GB is quite noticeably quieter and cooler than my 60GB. If I didn't actually use the BC (yesterday, in fact), I'd absolutely sell my 60 and get a 40 instead, because the primary purpose of my PS3 (95% of its use) is as a Blu-Ray player. As it is, I'll probably just wait till a suitable BR player is available and move the PS3 to another room where it won't (mildly) annoy me while I'm watching a movie.
aznguyen316
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 49 (100%)
^^ thank you. I will be using primarily as a BD player as well. Except until MGS4 comes out but for all else I'll be buying on 360.
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
[quote name='The Mana Knight']I'm referring to the original hardware BC of the 20/60GB. It will never come back. 80GB which has isn't a complete surprise, but still doesn't play AS many PS2 games as the 20/60GB.[/quote]
Yeah, though I wouldn't completely rule out full backwards compatibility coming back. There's no reason they can't do it.
That's an engineering/software issue. Makes it harder to do, but it's doable (and it's how the PS2 does things if I'm remembering right).
[quote name='geko29']The PS1 processor--square chip in the upper left-hand corner--the RAM chip above it, and some other minor associated hardware. Contrary to your inference, it isn't integrated into the "PS2-on-12-chips". It's a wholly separate set of hardware soldered right onto the board. Just like it is on the PS3. Look in the lower left corner, and you'll see the PS1 processor, some RAM, and associated chips. This carries through all the way to the 40GB board, where it is moved and rearranged slightly, but all still there.[/quote]
I've never heard that before, nor seen that in any breakdown, but even if that's how they're doing it, they don't need to. I'd need some proof of that though, as I've seen multiple breakdowns of Sony's hardware and it started out with a PS1-on-a-chip but AFAIK has long since been folded up into the PS2...maybe not though.
In the first place, the PS3 actually DOES use RDRAM...though the timings, interface, etc. would be totally different for it. That said, you're acting like the EE is unchangeable. They could rework it to use SDRAM if they wanted to. They can certainly change it's memory controller, or have it use an external memory controller (ie the PS3's) and either in hardware or software handle memory timing issues so that software running on it behaves more or less as expected.
They would have if they took backwards compatibility seriously enough-or possibly just if they had enough time. I doubt that was a primary focus for them. Even still, I think they should have integrated it better like they did with the PS1 in the PS2.
No, you claimed they weren't releaseing one with backwards compatibility, on roughtly the same day th ey just announced they're releasing another one with backwards compatibility.
And no, I don't know that they won't ever go back to having more or less the full hardware. Doing so will get cheaper and cheaper for them however they do it. Or alternatively they may be working on software emulation. I certainly hope they're doing one or the other, as one of the big draws for the Playstation brand has been full backwards compatibility. Without that there's no need to stick with the PS3 over the 360 or PC just to maintain compatibility.
Yeah, though I wouldn't completely rule out full backwards compatibility coming back. There's no reason they can't do it.
That's an engineering/software issue. Makes it harder to do, but it's doable (and it's how the PS2 does things if I'm remembering right).
[quote name='geko29']The PS1 processor--square chip in the upper left-hand corner--the RAM chip above it, and some other minor associated hardware. Contrary to your inference, it isn't integrated into the "PS2-on-12-chips". It's a wholly separate set of hardware soldered right onto the board. Just like it is on the PS3. Look in the lower left corner, and you'll see the PS1 processor, some RAM, and associated chips. This carries through all the way to the 40GB board, where it is moved and rearranged slightly, but all still there.[/quote]
I've never heard that before, nor seen that in any breakdown, but even if that's how they're doing it, they don't need to. I'd need some proof of that though, as I've seen multiple breakdowns of Sony's hardware and it started out with a PS1-on-a-chip but AFAIK has long since been folded up into the PS2...maybe not though.
In the first place, the PS3 actually DOES use RDRAM...though the timings, interface, etc. would be totally different for it. That said, you're acting like the EE is unchangeable. They could rework it to use SDRAM if they wanted to. They can certainly change it's memory controller, or have it use an external memory controller (ie the PS3's) and either in hardware or software handle memory timing issues so that software running on it behaves more or less as expected.
They would have if they took backwards compatibility seriously enough-or possibly just if they had enough time. I doubt that was a primary focus for them. Even still, I think they should have integrated it better like they did with the PS1 in the PS2.
No, you claimed they weren't releaseing one with backwards compatibility, on roughtly the same day th ey just announced they're releasing another one with backwards compatibility.
And no, I don't know that they won't ever go back to having more or less the full hardware. Doing so will get cheaper and cheaper for them however they do it. Or alternatively they may be working on software emulation. I certainly hope they're doing one or the other, as one of the big draws for the Playstation brand has been full backwards compatibility. Without that there's no need to stick with the PS3 over the 360 or PC just to maintain compatibility.
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
[quote name='aznguyen316']damn wtf is all this arguing about haha
what I want to know is about the 60gb vs the new 40gb is hardware failure problems. I heard the 40gb has different fan locations, quieter etc. Does it run cooler? It has a smaller chipset in it right? I'm debating on getting a used 60gb from gamefunk or a brand new 40gb.. I'm not HUGE into BC as I sold off all my PS2 games but I guess I'd like to have it just cuz hah as for the HDD size, no concern I'm not afraid to swap out for a bigger HDD in near future.[/QUOTE]
The 40GB model uses a CPU built on a 65nm process versus 90 for the old one, so it runs cooler. But I'd expect the upcoming 80GB model that has backwards compatibility to also use the smaller CPU.
what I want to know is about the 60gb vs the new 40gb is hardware failure problems. I heard the 40gb has different fan locations, quieter etc. Does it run cooler? It has a smaller chipset in it right? I'm debating on getting a used 60gb from gamefunk or a brand new 40gb.. I'm not HUGE into BC as I sold off all my PS2 games but I guess I'd like to have it just cuz hah as for the HDD size, no concern I'm not afraid to swap out for a bigger HDD in near future.[/QUOTE]
The 40GB model uses a CPU built on a 65nm process versus 90 for the old one, so it runs cooler. But I'd expect the upcoming 80GB model that has backwards compatibility to also use the smaller CPU.
[quote name='Wolfpup']I've never heard that before, nor seen that in any breakdown, but even if that's how they're doing it, they don't need to. I'd need some proof of that though, as I've seen multiple breakdowns of Sony's hardware and it started out with a PS1-on-a-chip but AFAIK has long since been folded up into the PS2...maybe not though.[/quote]
The part number of the chip is plainly visible. You do some legwork for a change. I pointed out each and every major backwards-compatible chip to you on 4 different system boards. I think that's enough. If you don't believe me, go find something else.
[quote name='Wolfpup']In the first place, the PS3 actually DOES use RDRAM...though the timings, interface, etc. would be totally different for it. That said, you're acting like the EE is unchangeable. They could rework it to use SDRAM if they wanted to. They can certainly change it's memory controller, or have it use an external memory controller (ie the PS3's) and either in hardware or software handle memory timing issues so that software running on it behaves more or less as expected. [/quote]
They can't change the type of memory the processor accesses or how it accesses it without running a huge risk of breaking existing software that depends on things being done the "old" way. In a full software emulation setup, they obviously can. Whether they'll do that or not is debatable.
[quote name='Wolfpup']They would have if they took backwards compatibility seriously enough-or possibly just if they had enough time. I doubt that was a primary focus for them.[/quote]
Even if it wasn't a primary focus for the PS3, don't you think more efficient packaging would be a primary focus for the PS2, if it was indeed economically viable? The slim PS2 uses dozens of chips, and they build tens of millions of them a year. Don't you think if it was cost effective to shrink it all into one chip they would have done so? PS3 cost savings would just be gravy at that point, compared to the BOATLOADS of cash they'd save on the PS2.
[quote name='Wolfpup']No, you claimed they weren't releaseing one with backwards compatibility, on roughtly the same day th ey just announced they're releasing another one with backwards compatibility.[/quote]
Don't tell me what I said or what I meant. Sony already officially announced that the production run of the 80GB models is over. Just because they recalled stock from the channel to resell at a later date doesn't mean they're re-introducing backwards compatibility. When they stopped producing the 60GBs, they still made it into the channel for a few months. But that doesn't mean they were building more.
[quote name='Wolfpup'] And no, I don't know that they won't ever go back to having more or less the full hardware. Doing so will get cheaper and cheaper for them however they do it. Or alternatively they may be working on software emulation. I certainly hope they're doing one or the other, as one of the big draws for the Playstation brand has been full backwards compatibility. Without that there's no need to stick with the PS3 over the 360 or PC just to maintain compatibility.[/quote]
I would guess that they're probably working on emulation. How determined they are to make it work is anybody's guess. But they've very publically stated that they're trying to move the market away from playing old games and on to selling new PS3 titles. Supporting full BC undermines that. Aside from production cost, that was one of the big reasons it was eliminated. Most of the people interested in BC were early adopters anyway and either bought at release or when the announcements came that it was going away.
But I'll wager hard cash that there will never be a 120/160GB PS3 (ie NEW PRODUCTION, not new old stock that was built last year) with a EE+GS under the hood. That cut is permanent, I guarantee.
[quote name='Wolfpup']The 40GB model uses a CPU built on a 65nm process versus 90 for the old one, so it runs cooler. But I'd expect the upcoming 80GB model that has backwards compatibility to also use the smaller CPU.[/quote]
The ones coming out in June were built last year. They will almost assuredly have the 90nm CPU. Sony is NOT building any new 80GB units. If they did build some towards the end of 2007 with the 65nm, then a few units will have it. But it certainly won't be the lion's share.
The part number of the chip is plainly visible. You do some legwork for a change.
I pointed out each and every major backwards-compatible chip to you on 4 different system boards. I think that's enough. If you don't believe me, go find something else.[quote name='Wolfpup']In the first place, the PS3 actually DOES use RDRAM...though the timings, interface, etc. would be totally different for it. That said, you're acting like the EE is unchangeable. They could rework it to use SDRAM if they wanted to. They can certainly change it's memory controller, or have it use an external memory controller (ie the PS3's) and either in hardware or software handle memory timing issues so that software running on it behaves more or less as expected. [/quote]
They can't change the type of memory the processor accesses or how it accesses it without running a huge risk of breaking existing software that depends on things being done the "old" way. In a full software emulation setup, they obviously can. Whether they'll do that or not is debatable.
[quote name='Wolfpup']They would have if they took backwards compatibility seriously enough-or possibly just if they had enough time. I doubt that was a primary focus for them.[/quote]
Even if it wasn't a primary focus for the PS3, don't you think more efficient packaging would be a primary focus for the PS2, if it was indeed economically viable? The slim PS2 uses dozens of chips, and they build tens of millions of them a year. Don't you think if it was cost effective to shrink it all into one chip they would have done so? PS3 cost savings would just be gravy at that point, compared to the BOATLOADS of cash they'd save on the PS2.
[quote name='Wolfpup']No, you claimed they weren't releaseing one with backwards compatibility, on roughtly the same day th ey just announced they're releasing another one with backwards compatibility.[/quote]
Don't tell me what I said or what I meant. Sony already officially announced that the production run of the 80GB models is over. Just because they recalled stock from the channel to resell at a later date doesn't mean they're re-introducing backwards compatibility. When they stopped producing the 60GBs, they still made it into the channel for a few months. But that doesn't mean they were building more.
[quote name='Wolfpup'] And no, I don't know that they won't ever go back to having more or less the full hardware. Doing so will get cheaper and cheaper for them however they do it. Or alternatively they may be working on software emulation. I certainly hope they're doing one or the other, as one of the big draws for the Playstation brand has been full backwards compatibility. Without that there's no need to stick with the PS3 over the 360 or PC just to maintain compatibility.[/quote]
I would guess that they're probably working on emulation. How determined they are to make it work is anybody's guess. But they've very publically stated that they're trying to move the market away from playing old games and on to selling new PS3 titles. Supporting full BC undermines that. Aside from production cost, that was one of the big reasons it was eliminated. Most of the people interested in BC were early adopters anyway and either bought at release or when the announcements came that it was going away.
But I'll wager hard cash that there will never be a 120/160GB PS3 (ie NEW PRODUCTION, not new old stock that was built last year) with a EE+GS under the hood. That cut is permanent, I guarantee.
[quote name='Wolfpup']The 40GB model uses a CPU built on a 65nm process versus 90 for the old one, so it runs cooler. But I'd expect the upcoming 80GB model that has backwards compatibility to also use the smaller CPU.[/quote]
The ones coming out in June were built last year. They will almost assuredly have the 90nm CPU. Sony is NOT building any new 80GB units. If they did build some towards the end of 2007 with the 65nm, then a few units will have it. But it certainly won't be the lion's share.
aznguyen316
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 49 (100%)
[quote name='Wolfpup']The 40GB model uses a CPU built on a 65nm process versus 90 for the old one, so it runs cooler. But I'd expect the upcoming 80GB model that has backwards compatibility to also use the smaller CPU.[/quote]
thank you sir.
thank you sir.
[quote name='geko29']The ones coming out in June were built last year. They will almost assuredly have the 90nm CPU. Sony is NOT building any new 80GB units. If they did build some towards the end of 2007 with the 65nm, then a few units will have it. But it certainly won't be the lion's share.[/quote]
I'm with you there, I don't think they are building new ones either.
I'm with you there, I don't think they are building new ones either.
aznguyen316
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 49 (100%)
guess I'm leaning 70% toward a new 40gb.. and check new egg for a bigger HDD. Is there a market for the 40gb HDD's? Are these locked like old xbox 8gb's were, or can I just sell it as a standard SATA 2.5" 40GB HDD on ebay or something?
I'm not trying to generalize, but of the PS3 games I have, why are the updates so freakin' large? They take far too long to download and install whereas the Live game updates are a few seconds for the most part. Are developers just not optimizing them or what?
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='SteveMcQ']I'm not trying to generalize, but of the PS3 games I have, why are the updates so freakin' large? They take far too long to download and install whereas the Live game updates are a few seconds for the most part. Are developers just not optimizing them or what?[/QUOTE]I'll put it in two ways:
As for file sizes, most PS3 games eat up a bit more file space regardless (when you compare the same demo on PS3/360, usually the PS3 demo is larger, but not by a long shot).
As for slow speed, the answer is easy. The server Sony uses on the PS3 when it comes to patches is not a blazing fast one, because they don't feel the need to pay for fast servers due to small file sizes. That's pretty much why PSN is free. I don't care because it's not like I'm downloading 400MB.
Although Steve, in the past, many PS3 game patches were handled worse (Resistance, MotorStorm, PSN games, etc.) because the PS3 lacked a patch system in place, and you had to re-download an entire file (It was fixed in many games released Summer 07 and after).
As for file sizes, most PS3 games eat up a bit more file space regardless (when you compare the same demo on PS3/360, usually the PS3 demo is larger, but not by a long shot).
As for slow speed, the answer is easy. The server Sony uses on the PS3 when it comes to patches is not a blazing fast one, because they don't feel the need to pay for fast servers due to small file sizes. That's pretty much why PSN is free. I don't care because it's not like I'm downloading 400MB.
Although Steve, in the past, many PS3 game patches were handled worse (Resistance, MotorStorm, PSN games, etc.) because the PS3 lacked a patch system in place, and you had to re-download an entire file (It was fixed in many games released Summer 07 and after).
[quote name='The Mana Knight']I'll put it in two ways:
As for file sizes, most PS3 games eat up a bit more file space regardless (when you compare the same demo on PS3/360, usually the PS3 demo is larger, but not by a long shot).
As for slow speed, the answer is easy. The server Sony uses on the PS3 when it comes to patches is not a blazing fast one, because they don't feel the need to pay for fast servers due to small file sizes. That's pretty much why PSN is free. I don't care because it's not like I'm downloading 400MB.
Although Steve, in the past, many PS3 game patches were handled worse (Resistance, MotorStorm, PSN games, etc.) because the PS3 lacked a patch system in place, and you had to re-download an entire file (It was fixed in many games released Summer 07 and after).[/quote]Yeah, they are improving the game patching. It was quite unintuitive in MotorStorm to have to go to the Online menu for the patch to initialize. It works much better now with the other few I've tried, I just hope they find better ways to optimize the patches.
As for file sizes, most PS3 games eat up a bit more file space regardless (when you compare the same demo on PS3/360, usually the PS3 demo is larger, but not by a long shot).
As for slow speed, the answer is easy. The server Sony uses on the PS3 when it comes to patches is not a blazing fast one, because they don't feel the need to pay for fast servers due to small file sizes. That's pretty much why PSN is free. I don't care because it's not like I'm downloading 400MB.
Although Steve, in the past, many PS3 game patches were handled worse (Resistance, MotorStorm, PSN games, etc.) because the PS3 lacked a patch system in place, and you had to re-download an entire file (It was fixed in many games released Summer 07 and after).[/quote]Yeah, they are improving the game patching. It was quite unintuitive in MotorStorm to have to go to the Online menu for the patch to initialize. It works much better now with the other few I've tried, I just hope they find better ways to optimize the patches.
DefinedByClass13
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
General positioning question; vertical or horizontal?
At some point this year, I'm buying a PS3. Maybe sooner rather than later since funds are ok at the moment. The PS3 I buy MUST have BC. I don't want to buy a PS2 and a 40 GB PS3 to clutter up my entertainment unit, and I especially don't want to deal with corded PS2 controllers or memory cards, so please don't tell me to just get a PS2 to play PS2 games.
With that out of the way, what are the differences between the 60 GB and the 80 GB? I know 60 GB is practically full BC (a few games don't work) while the 80 GB version is mostly BC (less games work than the 60 GB model). I'm still compiling a list of all the PS2 games I plan to play, but so far I don't recall any issues in BC on either of the systems.
I also know about the MSG4 bundle scheduled to hit in June. However, I have basically no interest in MGS4 and it would most likely just be sold upon purchase of the bundle. I also don't really care about the rumble feature in the DS3 controllers (never really used rumble on PS2/GC/N64/PSX), so if that's the only benefit, then I can do without that if need be.
Maybe a little Off topic, but those 4 product IDs you list on monoprice for HDMI cables are ones that work for PS3 to TV right? I thought those type of cables were like $50 lol. Is the quality not as good or am I just thinking they cost way more than they do? I assume those 4 also work for Cable boxes to TVs? (I used the HDMI cord that came with my 360 before I sold it to hook up my cable box to TV, so if its the same thing then I guess it does).
Thanks for any help you can give.
With that out of the way, what are the differences between the 60 GB and the 80 GB? I know 60 GB is practically full BC (a few games don't work) while the 80 GB version is mostly BC (less games work than the 60 GB model). I'm still compiling a list of all the PS2 games I plan to play, but so far I don't recall any issues in BC on either of the systems.
I also know about the MSG4 bundle scheduled to hit in June. However, I have basically no interest in MGS4 and it would most likely just be sold upon purchase of the bundle. I also don't really care about the rumble feature in the DS3 controllers (never really used rumble on PS2/GC/N64/PSX), so if that's the only benefit, then I can do without that if need be.
Maybe a little Off topic, but those 4 product IDs you list on monoprice for HDMI cables are ones that work for PS3 to TV right? I thought those type of cables were like $50 lol. Is the quality not as good or am I just thinking they cost way more than they do? I assume those 4 also work for Cable boxes to TVs? (I used the HDMI cord that came with my 360 before I sold it to hook up my cable box to TV, so if its the same thing then I guess it does).
Thanks for any help you can give.
pimpinc333
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 107 (100%)
[quote name='Ryukahn']
Maybe a little Off topic, but those 4 product IDs you list on monoprice for HDMI cables are ones that work for PS3 to TV right? I thought those type of cables were like $50 lol. Is the quality not as good or am I just thinking they cost way more than they do? I assume those 4 also work for Cable boxes to TVs? (I used the HDMI cord that came with my 360 before I sold it to hook up my cable box to TV, so if its the same thing then I guess it does).
Thanks for any help you can give.[/QUOTE]
All HDMI cables work pretty much the same. You are right about seeing them for 50-150 Bucks. The reason? The stores and companys outrageous mark up to rip off the un knowing consumer.
Maybe a little Off topic, but those 4 product IDs you list on monoprice for HDMI cables are ones that work for PS3 to TV right? I thought those type of cables were like $50 lol. Is the quality not as good or am I just thinking they cost way more than they do? I assume those 4 also work for Cable boxes to TVs? (I used the HDMI cord that came with my 360 before I sold it to hook up my cable box to TV, so if its the same thing then I guess it does).
Thanks for any help you can give.
[/QUOTE]All HDMI cables work pretty much the same. You are right about seeing them for 50-150 Bucks. The reason? The stores and companys outrageous mark up to rip off the un knowing consumer.
I'm noticing my PS3 getting a lot of dust, I'm actually more concerned about dust getting inside than outside. One thing I wouldn't do is using a can of compressed air and it actually blows the dust right into the system from the vents.
Has anyone try vacuum cleaner to suck the dust out of the vents (this is where it seems to gather dust)? Does it work? BTW, I've noticed getting the system up vertically may gather more dust, horizontal is still the best layout, I put 2 books at bottom so it doesn't rest against the carpet.
Also Hori sells Dust Guard for PS3, does this cause the system to overheat? The way I see it looks more like air filter for your PS3.
Has anyone try vacuum cleaner to suck the dust out of the vents (this is where it seems to gather dust)? Does it work? BTW, I've noticed getting the system up vertically may gather more dust, horizontal is still the best layout, I put 2 books at bottom so it doesn't rest against the carpet.
Also Hori sells Dust Guard for PS3, does this cause the system to overheat? The way I see it looks more like air filter for your PS3.
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='SteveMcQ']Yeah, they are improving the game patching. It was quite unintuitive in MotorStorm to have to go to the Online menu for the patch to initialize. It works much better now with the other few I've tried, I just hope they find better ways to optimize the patches.[/QUOTE]Since it is indeed harder to develop on PS3, my guess is there's a lot of redundant code (well, writing software myself, I kind of learned that) in most developers patches and they just haven't learned yet how to keep the coding simple (kind of like when someone uses a new programming language for the first time and may not be familiar with concepts).
DefinedByClass13
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I had it vertically due to the little stool it was on, but I bought a tv cart to set up my ps3 and wii, so I set it horizontally now, for the fact that it is less likely to tip or fall.
I have a few questions regarding the 80gb model and 40gb model. The questions are for both.
Do they both get equally hot?
As hot as the 360?
If so, hot enough that it would cause a system failure down the line?
Is the 40gb really quieter? Please compare noise levels of an 80gb and a 40gb to a 360.
Do they both get equally hot?
As hot as the 360?
If so, hot enough that it would cause a system failure down the line?
Is the 40gb really quieter? Please compare noise levels of an 80gb and a 40gb to a 360.
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='dragonsho']I have a few questions regarding the 80gb model and 40gb model. The questions are for both.
Do they both get equally hot?
As hot as the 360?
If so, hot enough that it would cause a system failure down the line?
Is the 40gb really quieter? Please compare noise levels of an 80gb and a 40gb to a 360.[/QUOTE]Although I don't own both, I can tell you what I've heard.
-40GB is much cooler, since it draws less current and uses much less power.
-The 20/60GB use more power. I think the 80GB is relatively similar to the 360, maybe less. 40GB is less I believe, but might be equal to the Falcon 360.
-The PS3 doesn't have many overheating issues. If the console gets too hot, it will automatically shut off and won't let you turn it back on. Very rarely does a PS3 have an overheat issue (causing it to get a yellow light of death, which is the same as the red ring of death).
-Any PS3 SKU is quieter than the 360.
-40GB is the quietest I believe, while most 60GB and 20GB consoles are extremely quiet. I hear most 80GB consoles tend to be louder than some 20/60GB ones (the ones which are near silent, such as mine), but still quieter than the 360 for sure.
Someone at PSU did this test a while ago, but it still remains similar regardless of PS3 SKU
In my place, I'd say the PS3 is even more quiet than the Wii when playing a game.
Do they both get equally hot?
As hot as the 360?
If so, hot enough that it would cause a system failure down the line?
Is the 40gb really quieter? Please compare noise levels of an 80gb and a 40gb to a 360.[/QUOTE]Although I don't own both, I can tell you what I've heard.
-40GB is much cooler, since it draws less current and uses much less power.
-The 20/60GB use more power. I think the 80GB is relatively similar to the 360, maybe less. 40GB is less I believe, but might be equal to the Falcon 360.
-The PS3 doesn't have many overheating issues. If the console gets too hot, it will automatically shut off and won't let you turn it back on. Very rarely does a PS3 have an overheat issue (causing it to get a yellow light of death, which is the same as the red ring of death).
-Any PS3 SKU is quieter than the 360.
-40GB is the quietest I believe, while most 60GB and 20GB consoles are extremely quiet. I hear most 80GB consoles tend to be louder than some 20/60GB ones (the ones which are near silent, such as mine), but still quieter than the 360 for sure.
Someone at PSU did this test a while ago, but it still remains similar regardless of PS3 SKU
Link
In my place, I'd say the PS3 is even more quiet than the Wii when playing a game.
[quote name='The Mana Knight']Although I don't own both, I can tell you what I've heard.
-40GB is much cooler, since it draws less current and uses much less power.
-The 20/60GB use more power. I think the 80GB is relatively similar to the 360, maybe less. 40GB is less I believe, but might be equal to the Falcon 360.
-The PS3 doesn't have many overheating issues. If the console gets too hot, it will automatically shut off and won't let you turn it back on. Very rarely does a PS3 have an overheat issue (causing it to get a yellow light of death, which is the same as the red ring of death).
-Any PS3 SKU is quieter than the 360.
-40GB is the quietest I believe, while most 60GB and 20GB consoles are extremely quiet. I hear most 80GB consoles tend to be louder than some 20/60GB ones (the ones which are near silent, such as mine), but still quieter than the 360 for sure.
Someone at PSU did this test a while ago, but it still remains similar regardless of PS3 SKU
Link
In my place, I'd say the PS3 is even more quiet than the Wii when playing a game.[/quote]
Thanks. I guess that brings me to my next question.
Is it safe to buy a 60gb ps3 (will most likely get it from gamefunk)? I'm just so used to the whole idea of never buying a use 360, that I'm weary of buying a used ps3
-40GB is much cooler, since it draws less current and uses much less power.
-The 20/60GB use more power. I think the 80GB is relatively similar to the 360, maybe less. 40GB is less I believe, but might be equal to the Falcon 360.
-The PS3 doesn't have many overheating issues. If the console gets too hot, it will automatically shut off and won't let you turn it back on. Very rarely does a PS3 have an overheat issue (causing it to get a yellow light of death, which is the same as the red ring of death).
-Any PS3 SKU is quieter than the 360.
-40GB is the quietest I believe, while most 60GB and 20GB consoles are extremely quiet. I hear most 80GB consoles tend to be louder than some 20/60GB ones (the ones which are near silent, such as mine), but still quieter than the 360 for sure.
Someone at PSU did this test a while ago, but it still remains similar regardless of PS3 SKU
Link
In my place, I'd say the PS3 is even more quiet than the Wii when playing a game.[/quote]
Thanks. I guess that brings me to my next question.
Is it safe to buy a 60gb ps3 (will most likely get it from gamefunk)? I'm just so used to the whole idea of never buying a use 360, that I'm weary of buying a used ps3
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='dragonsho']Thanks. I guess that brings me to my next question.
Is it safe to buy a 60gb ps3 (will most likely get it from gamefunk)? I'm just so used to the whole idea of never buying a use 360, that I'm weary of buying a used ps3[/QUOTE]I'm going to say you may, but I personally would not recommend it.
Although the PS3 failure rate is around 3-5%, there has been a higher number of older PS3 consoles stopped working compared to a few months ago (at big PS3 forums), usually from the blu-ray disc diode dying (causing no disc to be read as the most common issue), followed by the three beep error (where it just won't turn on, all you get is three beeps or something), and the yellow light of death (equivalent to the 360 RRoD, but does not occur often). There has been an occasional HDD failure or bad HDMI port. The overall big issue with buying used IMO is a receipt IS required for a console to be repaired/replaced by SCEA if it's in warranty (although 60GB production ended in March or April 2006 for the U.S., so it might be meaningless unless the previous owner bought it less than a year ago). And as of right now, there is no extended warranty. The big issue with buying used is how well the console was taken care of, because that does factor into how long a used PS3 might last (like if someone did a lot of Folding@Home, there's a very good chance their console may not last much longer).
Right now, it's up in the air for how long they'll last.
There's talk of a white 40GB SKU coming in March though.
Is it safe to buy a 60gb ps3 (will most likely get it from gamefunk)? I'm just so used to the whole idea of never buying a use 360, that I'm weary of buying a used ps3[/QUOTE]I'm going to say you may, but I personally would not recommend it.
Although the PS3 failure rate is around 3-5%, there has been a higher number of older PS3 consoles stopped working compared to a few months ago (at big PS3 forums), usually from the blu-ray disc diode dying (causing no disc to be read as the most common issue), followed by the three beep error (where it just won't turn on, all you get is three beeps or something), and the yellow light of death (equivalent to the 360 RRoD, but does not occur often). There has been an occasional HDD failure or bad HDMI port. The overall big issue with buying used IMO is a receipt IS required for a console to be repaired/replaced by SCEA if it's in warranty (although 60GB production ended in March or April 2006 for the U.S., so it might be meaningless unless the previous owner bought it less than a year ago). And as of right now, there is no extended warranty. The big issue with buying used is how well the console was taken care of, because that does factor into how long a used PS3 might last (like if someone did a lot of Folding@Home, there's a very good chance their console may not last much longer).
Right now, it's up in the air for how long they'll last.
There's talk of a white 40GB SKU coming in March though.
Lucky13
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Lucky13']When I setup my PS3 WiFi the internet connection always fails. I get a DNS error (80710102). I'm pretty sure I know what steps I need to take to sort things out but I've hit some road blocks.
I know my DNS server info and WEP Key but something I'm putting in is probably incorrect. The only catch is ipconfig /all doesn't work for me and I can't log into my router because I have to wait for Netgear to get back to me with my info. It used to work but now it opens for a split second then closes so I'm kind of stuck and not sure how to get the info I need...
I was told that as long as I get the WEP key the DNS settings will sort itself out. The thing is I have to manually put my IP address in because the PS3 won't pick it up on its own so I also have to put my default router and dns settings in.
The customer service at Netgear sucks. I spent 15 minutes on the phone with the guy only to have him tell me that I bought my router over 90 days ago, that he couldn't help me over the phone because of that and I could only get tech support by email... I'd appreciate any help any of you can give me, thanks. Oh and I'm using a Netgear router WGT624v2.[/quote]
Hi guys I'm just wondering if there is anyone that could help me with the question I quoted that I posted a few pages back. The netgear cs link they gave me was dead so I emailed the guy I talked to on the phone directly. I still haven't heard back from them 5 days later when he said I would receive an email the next day... ipconfig still isn't working for me and I'm still at a loss for what to do
?
I know my DNS server info and WEP Key but something I'm putting in is probably incorrect. The only catch is ipconfig /all doesn't work for me and I can't log into my router because I have to wait for Netgear to get back to me with my info. It used to work but now it opens for a split second then closes so I'm kind of stuck and not sure how to get the info I need...
I was told that as long as I get the WEP key the DNS settings will sort itself out. The thing is I have to manually put my IP address in because the PS3 won't pick it up on its own so I also have to put my default router and dns settings in.
The customer service at Netgear sucks. I spent 15 minutes on the phone with the guy only to have him tell me that I bought my router over 90 days ago, that he couldn't help me over the phone because of that and I could only get tech support by email... I'd appreciate any help any of you can give me, thanks. Oh and I'm using a Netgear router WGT624v2.[/quote]
Hi guys I'm just wondering if there is anyone that could help me with the question I quoted that I posted a few pages back. The netgear cs link they gave me was dead so I emailed the guy I talked to on the phone directly. I still haven't heard back from them 5 days later when he said I would receive an email the next day... ipconfig still isn't working for me and I'm still at a loss for what to do
?
Oxygen
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Vinny']Is the PS1/2 memory card adaptor thingy only to read PS1/2 memory cards or can it also be used to copy data to and from the PS3 HD (or flash memory cards via the built in reader)?
This is for the 60GB model, if that matters.[/quote]
It used to be only able to read, but a firmware update a while ago made it possible for the adapter to write to the memory cards as well. It does not matter which model you have.
This is for the 60GB model, if that matters.[/quote]
It used to be only able to read, but a firmware update a while ago made it possible for the adapter to write to the memory cards as well. It does not matter which model you have.
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='Oxygen']It used to be only able to read, but a firmware update a while ago made it possible for the adapter to write to the memory cards as well. It does not matter which model you have.[/QUOTE]Yeah, true. And in my case, I copy the data from my PS3 to my PC, just to backup my saves again (just in case anything happens to a PS1/PS2 memory card or my PS3 HDD.
[quote name='The Mana Knight']Yeah, true. And in my case, I copy the data from my PS3 to my PC, just to backup my saves again (just in case anything happens to a PS1/PS2 memory card or my PS3 HDD.[/quote]
So saves can be transferred freely between a PC and PS3? Do I need anything special for it besides I'm assuming a USB cable?
So saves can be transferred freely between a PC and PS3? Do I need anything special for it besides I'm assuming a USB cable?
aznguyen316
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 49 (100%)
[quote name='The Mana Knight']I'm going to say you may, but I personally would not recommend it.
Although the PS3 failure rate is around 3-5%, there has been a higher number of older PS3 consoles stopped working compared to a few months ago (at big PS3 forums), usually from the blu-ray disc diode dying (causing no disc to be read as the most common issue), followed by the three beep error (where it just won't turn on, all you get is three beeps or something), and the yellow light of death (equivalent to the 360 RRoD, but does not occur often). There has been an occasional HDD failure or bad HDMI port. The overall big issue with buying used IMO is a receipt IS required for a console to be repaired/replaced by SCEA if it's in warranty (although 60GB production ended in March or April 2006 for the U.S., so it might be meaningless unless the previous owner bought it less than a year ago). And as of right now, there is no extended warranty. The big issue with buying used is how well the console was taken care of, because that does factor into how long a used PS3 might last (like if someone did a lot of Folding@Home, there's a very good chance their console may not last much longer).
Right now, it's up in the air for how long they'll last.
There's talk of a white 40GB SKU coming in March though.[/quote]
thank you thank you. I've been debating and debating on 40gb or 60gb used.. I've been thinking 40gb 70% and now i'm 85% lol
Although the PS3 failure rate is around 3-5%, there has been a higher number of older PS3 consoles stopped working compared to a few months ago (at big PS3 forums), usually from the blu-ray disc diode dying (causing no disc to be read as the most common issue), followed by the three beep error (where it just won't turn on, all you get is three beeps or something), and the yellow light of death (equivalent to the 360 RRoD, but does not occur often). There has been an occasional HDD failure or bad HDMI port. The overall big issue with buying used IMO is a receipt IS required for a console to be repaired/replaced by SCEA if it's in warranty (although 60GB production ended in March or April 2006 for the U.S., so it might be meaningless unless the previous owner bought it less than a year ago). And as of right now, there is no extended warranty. The big issue with buying used is how well the console was taken care of, because that does factor into how long a used PS3 might last (like if someone did a lot of Folding@Home, there's a very good chance their console may not last much longer).
Right now, it's up in the air for how long they'll last.
There's talk of a white 40GB SKU coming in March though.[/quote]
thank you thank you. I've been debating and debating on 40gb or 60gb used.. I've been thinking 40gb 70% and now i'm 85% lol
bread's done