I Dont Think PS3 Users Should Be able to use the "One Year" Excuse.

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"]

[QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"]Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftSaintsRowSam

If the 360 beat PS3, then no -- cows can't use the one-year excuse.

If PS3 beats 360, cows are welcome to rub the embarassing truth in all our faces -- that the 360 started 1 year earlier, had a bigger library, a "better" library, and was always cheaper.

and the ps3 didnt have a single great title untill MGS4 :|

why do some ps3 fanboys continue to fall into this same trap?

That's not how I've heard the story. The new chips will generate less heat, which is good since heat is what's causing RRoD. Thing is though, that there's an essential flaw in the design making it troublesome for the 360 to lose it's heat, which will therefore accumulate, cause the temperature to rise and brick your system. With the new chip the temperature will just rise slower. But since lots of people (like me) play for several hours on end sometimes, the problems will still persist. NielsNL

Issues like this always boil down to a rate of heat dissipation vs. a rate of heat creation.

Basically, you want the system to have a rate of heat dissipation equal to or greater than that of the system's rate of heat creation. You can make the equation better by either lowering the rate of heat creation or increasing the rate of heat dissipation.

By lower the amount of heat key components create, the issue is lessened.

It's a liiitle more complex than that seeing as how parts of the system will have different temperatures of other parts, and the rate of heat disipation naturally rises as the temperature rises. However, the point remains that lowering the rate of heat creation has a substantial impact because the necessary rate of heat disipation is lessened.

[QUOTE="NielsNL"]That's not how I've heard the story. The new chips will generate less heat, which is good since heat is what's causing RRoD. Thing is though, that there's an essential flaw in the design making it troublesome for the 360 to lose it's heat, which will therefore accumulate, cause the temperature to rise and brick your system. With the new chip the temperature will just rise slower. But since lots of people (like me) play for several hours on end sometimes, the problems will still persist. mattbbpl

Issues like this always boil down to a rate of heat dissipation vs. a rate of heat creation.

Basically, you want the system to have a rate of heat dissipation equal to or greater than that of the system's rate of heat creation. You can make the equation better by either lowering the rate of heat creation or increasing the rate of heat dissipation.

By lower the amount of heat key components create, the issue is lessened.

It's a liiitle more complex than that seeing as how parts of the system will have different temperatures of other parts, and the rate of heat disipation naturally rises as the temperature rises. However, the point remains that lowering the rate of heat creation has a substantial impact because the necessary rate of heat disipation is lessened.

:lol:

I know. I had transport phenomena in school. I know what an energy balance is. heat in - heat out = accumulation. Accumulation also contains sources and sinks. But this isn't a physical forum now is it. Keep it simple.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="NielsNL"]That's not how I've heard the story. The new chips will generate less heat, which is good since heat is what's causing RRoD. Thing is though, that there's an essential flaw in the design making it troublesome for the 360 to lose it's heat, which will therefore accumulate, cause the temperature to rise and brick your system. With the new chip the temperature will just rise slower. But since lots of people (like me) play for several hours on end sometimes, the problems will still persist. NielsNL

Issues like this always boil down to a rate of heat dissipation vs. a rate of heat creation.

Basically, you want the system to have a rate of heat dissipation equal to or greater than that of the system's rate of heat creation. You can make the equation better by either lowering the rate of heat creation or increasing the rate of heat dissipation.

By lower the amount of heat key components create, the issue is lessened.

It's a liiitle more complex than that seeing as how parts of the system will have different temperatures of other parts, and the rate of heat disipation naturally rises as the temperature rises. However, the point remains that lowering the rate of heat creation has a substantial impact because the necessary rate of heat disipation is lessened.

:lol:

I know. I had transport phenomena in school. I know what an energy balance is. heat in - heat out = accumulation. Accumulation also contains sources and sinks. But this isn't a physical forum now is it. Keep it simple.

Didn't mean to make untrue assumptions, but your post made you seem unaware of the principle.

What makes you think that lowering the rate of heat creation won't resolve the issue then? It's just as good as raising the rate of heat dissipation, it just operates on the other side of the equation.

[QUOTE="NielsNL"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="NielsNL"]That's not how I've heard the story. The new chips will generate less heat, which is good since heat is what's causing RRoD. Thing is though, that there's an essential flaw in the design making it troublesome for the 360 to lose it's heat, which will therefore accumulate, cause the temperature to rise and brick your system. With the new chip the temperature will just rise slower. But since lots of people (like me) play for several hours on end sometimes, the problems will still persist. mattbbpl

Issues like this always boil down to a rate of heat dissipation vs. a rate of heat creation.

Basically, you want the system to have a rate of heat dissipation equal to or greater than that of the system's rate of heat creation. You can make the equation better by either lowering the rate of heat creation or increasing the rate of heat dissipation.

By lower the amount of heat key components create, the issue is lessened.

It's a liiitle more complex than that seeing as how parts of the system will have different temperatures of other parts, and the rate of heat disipation naturally rises as the temperature rises. However, the point remains that lowering the rate of heat creation has a substantial impact because the necessary rate of heat disipation is lessened.

:lol:

I know. I had transport phenomena in school. I know what an energy balance is. heat in - heat out = accumulation. Accumulation also contains sources and sinks. But this isn't a physical forum now is it. Keep it simple.

Didn't mean to make untrue assumptions, but your post made you seem unaware of the principle.

What makes you think that lowering the rate of heat creation won't resolve the issue then? It's just as good as raising the rate of heat dissipation, it just operates on the other side of the equation.

I'm saying the fail rate will drop a few percent. The problem won't be resolved since the heat sink still sucks. Less heat generation with the same sink will result in a slower heat accumulation, but heat accumulation nonetheless. The 360 is practically inable to get rid of heat. Slower heat accumulation will result in slower rise in temperature, but the rate of change of temperature is not the issue, the peak temperature is, because this is what's frying your console. If the problems are to be completely resolved the heat sink should become much more effective, which would take a complete redesign of the console since it's caused by the positioning of the DVD player with respect to the GPU and CPU. That's why RRoD will never be fixed. Microsoft has pretty much admitted this.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Didn't mean to make untrue assumptions, but your post made you seem unaware of the principle.

What makes you think that lowering the rate of heat creation won't resolve the issue then? It's just as good as raising the rate of heat dissipation, it just operates on the other side of the equation.

NielsNL

I'm saying the fail rate will drop a few percent. The problem won't be resolved since the heat sink still sucks. Less heat generation with the same sink will result in a slower heat accumulation, but heat accumulation nonetheless. The 360 is practically inable to get rid of heat. Slower heat accumulation will result in slower rise in temperature, but the rate of change of temperature is not the issue, the peak temperature is, because this is what's frying your console. If the problems are to be completely resolved the heat sink should become much more effective, which would take a complete redesign of the console since it's caused by the positioning of the DVD player with respect to the GPU and CPU. That's why RRoD will never be fixed. Microsoft has pretty much admitted this.

And I highly doubt MS has stated they will never be able to resolve the issue.

So you TC is saying that the PS3 has to release as much games and sell more than the 360 did in 3 years in only 2 years so you can accept the PS3? its impossible, no console can sell that much and release so much games in 2 years period so the "One Year" Excuse is valid!Hitman533

[QUOTE="NielsNL"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Didn't mean to make untrue assumptions, but your post made you seem unaware of the principle.

What makes you think that lowering the rate of heat creation won't resolve the issue then? It's just as good as raising the rate of heat dissipation, it just operates on the other side of the equation.

mattbbpl

I'm saying the fail rate will drop a few percent. The problem won't be resolved since the heat sink still sucks. Less heat generation with the same sink will result in a slower heat accumulation, but heat accumulation nonetheless. The 360 is practically inable to get rid of heat. Slower heat accumulation will result in slower rise in temperature, but the rate of change of temperature is not the issue, the peak temperature is, because this is what's frying your console. If the problems are to be completely resolved the heat sink should become much more effective, which would take a complete redesign of the console since it's caused by the positioning of the DVD player with respect to the GPU and CPU. That's why RRoD will never be fixed. Microsoft has pretty much admitted this.

And I highly doubt MS has stated they will never be able to resolve the issue.

Adressing the heat generation when the sink is the problem will have an effect, but not by a long shot resolve the problem like you claim. That's what I've been saying all along. The maximum temperature will only get slightly lower since there's a much more pronounced influence on this temperature by the lacking heat sink. The sink term here is the dominant one most strongly influencing the result.

Adressing the heat generation when the sink is the problem will have an effect, but not by a long shot resolve the problem like you claim. That's what I've been saying all along. The maximum temperature will only get slightly lower since there's a much more pronounced influence on this temperature by the lacking heat sink. The sink term here is the dominant one most strongly influencing the result. NielsNL

I've never heard anyone claim that slamming a heat sink on a chip is actually better than lowering the heat created by the chip itself. Care to explain? Why would replacing a heat sink that is insufficient to move the current heat away from the with one that is more adequately designed for the current heat production be better than simply lowering the heat the chip creates in the first place?

Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftSaintsRowSam

Well next time why dont you tell them those are bad ideas because you can see into the future. Did any other console go for broke with last gens graphics? No. Did any other console change their control set up intirely? No.

These are not bad desicions of NIntendo because why...? Did they not risk too... Hmmm, let me ponder my own questions for a bit before i get back to you with my answers.:roll:

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"]

[QUOTE="SaintsRowSam"]Nintendo came out one year later, and is dominating the market, and the 360 paid the price with the one year headstart because of the faulty hardeware (which is going to be gone with the new jasper chip coming soon), and lets get one thing Straight, Sony is last Because of the poor desicions they made upon launch. THEY decided to make the console $600, did they have to include Blu-ray? NO they chose to do that, they could have just gone with good ol DVD. So Sony is last because of Sony, not because of MicrosoftSaintsRowSam

If the 360 beat PS3, then no -- cows can't use the one-year excuse.

If PS3 beats 360, cows are welcome to rub the embarassing truth in all our faces -- that the 360 started 1 year earlier, had a bigger library, a "better" library, and was always cheaper.