Cell Hits 45nm, PS3 Price Drop Likely to Follow

Septimus writes "At this weeks ISSCC, IBM announced that the Cell CPU used in the PlayStation 3 will soon make the transition to IBM's next-gen 45nm high-k process. 'The 45nm Cell will use about 40 percent less power than its 65nm predecessor, and its die area will be reduced by 34 percent. The greatly reduced power budget will cut down on the amount of active cooling required by the console, which in turn will make it cheaper to produce and more reliable (this means fewer warrantied returns). Also affecting Sony's per-unit cost is the reduction in overall die size. A smaller die means a smaller, cheaper package; it also means that yields will be better and that each chip will cost less overall.'"

Comments

The Little and the Big

[cthulu_mt]

I don't know what it is about measuring things in nanometers and terabytes that gives me such a hardon.

Thank you IBM.

PS: Please don't put Skynet online.

Re:The Little and the Big

[Goblez]

This same comment in a few years will sound perverted if updated to use larger scales of magnitude.

"I don't know what it is about measuring things in picometers and petabytes that gives me such a hardon".

Effect on cost

[noidentity]

Cell Hits 45nm, PS3 Price Drop Likely to Follow

"[...] The greatly reduced power budget will cut down on the amount of active cooling required by the console, which in turn will make it cheaper to produce and more reliable (this means fewer warrantied returns). Also affecting Sony's per-unit cost is the reduction in overall die size. A smaller die means a smaller, cheaper package; it also means that yields will be better and that each chip will cost less overall.'"

My only question is, will this reduce the cost?

Re:Effect on cost

[McNihil]

You would be correct if Xbox 360 nor Wii didn't exist. Prices will certainly drop or the units will be packed with more of other kind of technology (PVR) for the same price.

Also affecting Sony's per-unit cost

[TubeSteak]

Is the fact they've dropped hardware PS2 emulation.

Re:Since when?

[ThreeGigs]

Since when does going to a smaller process increase yields?

Always has.

Assume there will be 20 defects on a wafer that will render 19 large chips (out of 100) unusable. Your yield is 81%.
Same 20 defects, but affecting 20 small chips (out of 170). Now your yield is 88%, or 150 chips versus 81 chips per wafer.

The number of defect sites per wafer is generally rather constant, thus the more chips you can fit on a wafer, the better the yield.

Re:oh, hum. What else is happening?

[bonkeydcow]

Moore's law is dead. Atoms aren't getting any smaller. With 5 atoms thick, when you try and go to 2.5 atoms thick, let me know and I'll get far away.

Often can

[Sycraft-fu]

The reason is that wafer size doesn't change. I don't remember what is current, 8 inch I believe (that's the largest I've seen) but regardless. So when you reduce the size of an individual chip, you get more chips per wafer. Now unless the percentage of chips that fail increases, that means you get a better yield/wafer.

Well cost is based per wafer. It doesn't cost any more to make a wafer with 1000 small chips than it does to make one with 4 big chips. In either case it is the same size wafer, same mask, same process, etc.

Now yield could go down if a company has problems with a new process. Suppose that the old process yields 10% non-working chips per wafer. You get a new process that yields 20% more chips per wafer than the old one, however now 50% of them are non-working. That would equal a lower yield, despite the more chips per wafer.

However assuming a roughly equal failure rate, shrinking the die size will increase the yield.

Re:Since when?

[mikael]

The size of a defect is of a fixed size. Usually it is a particle of dust that got in the way of the optical etching process. The distribution of such defects is even across the surface of the silicon wafer, so the distribution can be modelled mathematically.
Suppose there are 20 defects across the wafer. If your chip were the size of the entire wafer, it would be guaranteed to be defective.
Try half the size of the wafer, and there would be on average 10 defects. A quarter of the wafer, 5 defects. If you have a chip that is one hundredth the size of a single wafer, then the odds are now in your favour; on average 20/100 that you will have a defect, 80/100 that you will not.

The Cell processor is etched with eight processors anyway. If one is defective, they can ignore it, otherwise if all eight are working, then they will just deactivate one.

I wonder how long it will be before they start adding more processors to the chip.