PS3 Frankenstein PHAT PS3: CECHA with 40nm RSX

Btw, im going to make a list because i been messing around with this RSX wiki pages latelly, we can group them "by series" and we can consider the "suffix" doesnt matters when talking about the compatibility in between them
The name starts with "CXD", then this numbers, and finally the suffix "GB", "AGB", "BGB", etc...
https://www.psdevwiki.com/ps3/Template:Motherboard_Components

RSX 90nm = 2971
RSX 65nm = 2982
RSX 65nm = 2991
RSX 40nm = 5300
RSX 40nm = 5301
RSX 40nm = 5302
RSX 28nm = 5305

Just incase you can choose, try to get the newest number (except 28nm that is not phisically compatible with the solder pads of older RSX models)
 
sandungas said:
Btw, im going to make a list because i been messing around with this RSX wiki pages latelly, we can group them "by series" and we can consider the "suffix" doesnt matters when talking about the compatibility in between them
The name starts with "CXD", then this numbers, and finally the suffix "GB", "AGB", "BGB", etc...
https://www.psdevwiki.com/ps3/Template:Motherboard_Components

RSX 90nm = 2971
RSX 65nm = 2982
RSX 65nm = 2991
RSX 40nm = 5300
RSX 40nm = 5301
RSX 40nm = 5302
RSX 28nm = 5305

Just incase you can choose, try to get the newest number (except 28nm that is not phisically compatible with the solder pads of older RSX models)
Click to expand...
yes, before I named rsx "cxd", I was initially confused with the designation 40nm, 65nm, hahaha, but I was able to follow ...
 
botakompong said:
yes, before I named rsx "cxd", I was initially confused with the designation 40nm, 65nm, hahaha, but I was able to follow ...
Click to expand...
No problem, i was thinking in it and decided to make the list because the names could be a bit confusing, but also because what you mentioned about the voltages
I guess the motherboards that had the 90nm from factory are the ones that are feeding RSX at 1.2v
And i guess the 40nm RSX models are the ones that works at 0.95v
And the 65nm ones... i dont know

I will wait for @RIP-Felix review of the voltage reduction mod you suggested (im sure he is not going to let that fish to escape, lol)
And i guess at some point some of the people that is using this mod is going to need to check that voltages in different RSX models and motherboards
 
sandungas said:
No problem, i was thinking in it and decided to make the list because the names could be a bit confusing, but also because what you mentioned about the voltages
I guess the motherboards that had the 90nm from factory are the ones that are feeding RSX at 1.2v
And i guess the 40nm RSX models are the ones that works at 0.95v
And the 65nm ones... i dont know

I will wait for @RIP-Felix review of the voltage reduction mod you suggested (im sure he is not going to let that fish to escape, lol)
And i guess at some point some of the people that is using this mod is going to need to check that voltages in different RSX models and motherboards
Click to expand...
By the way, here is picture of the official SONY 65nm COK 002 Frankenstein v1
from this thread:
https://www.psx-place.com/threads/phat-ps3-cechc-with-65nm-rsx.33535/page-2
Screenshot_20210426-172153~2.png

I can't really tell if it was changed or not, but they should know.
I think it reads
IOR P637H
"F3R0" (instead of "G2M8")
F7456
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210426-172153~2.png
    Screenshot_20210426-172153~2.png
    221.8 KB · Views: 50
Last edited:
I try to sort RSX according to the Playstation machine that has been produced
Cech-model
Fat model
cecha-cechh = cxd2971
Cechi-cechk = cxd2982
CechL = cxd2991
Slim model
200x = cxd2991
210x = cxd530x
250x = cxd530x
300x = cxd530x
Superslim
400x = cxd530x
Dech model
From fat to slim cxd2991& cxd530x
 
On the COK-001 schematic (3rd ed.), Q6200 is a Si4866DY N-Channel Reduced Q, Fast Switching MOSFET. It's driven by IC6200, an N-Channel MOSFET driver. This is similar to how the other voltages are delivered to the RSX. Q6200 feeds 1.2v_VDDR. R is RAM. Interestingly, on my COK-001 I have what looks like the same Q6200 that picture @Pacorretaco posted from the 65nm SONY Refurbishment COK-002 (an IRF7456). Interesting that the schematic and actual parts on boards differ, but they must be interchangeable. Perhaps it went EOL...IDK.

So this goes back to an older question we had about the compatibility of voltages between generations of the RSX. A while back I wondered if the voltages were all the same or not? After looking at the datasheets for the various RAM modules (or the closest schematic we could find), the voltages were all within the same general range and should work fine. In one of the SONY refirbished consoles (not sure which off the top of my head) @DeadEnd noticed a few of changes made to resistors R6214 and R6216 on IC6200...
DeadEnd said:
And a few latest thoughts about the added resistors.

Based on this picture, it's very difficult to tell how many resistors and/or if the whole IC were all replaced.
View attachment 29570

However, having looked at the schematics a bit more I may have a better idea of what happened in that particular PCB neighborhood. But please remember, I am only speculating.

What they did was most likely install another IC - BD3504FVM (Or something similar to it) instead of the BD3520FVM. Why? Possible reasons could be that the original was faulty? Maybe it was causing 1.2v VDDR line to be unstable? Was it just a precaution?

Another potential reason is that BD3520FVM is only meant to output 1.2v, however the 3504 model can be adjusted to give out variable (0.65～2.5V)...It is probably still set up to output 1.2v in the circuit (I'm assuming?). Or is it possible that the new voltage might actually have been changed entirely? Have there been changes to RSX voltage in further revisions?

Anyways, the IC and around 2-4 resistors were most likely added/replaced to accomplish the same result as what the original BD3520FVM was doing. Why extra resistors? Because BD3520FVM already has them integrated into the IC, while BD3504FVM does not. This IC allows engineers to manually configure required output voltage for the application.

Once again, if my theory is true, these are the only differences. What does it mean? Well, there may be no immediate need to mess with this particular IC. Or you can recalculate the needed values and do it similarly to provide 1.2v (or something higher/lower) . As it stands, we don't have enough information why it was done or what voltage it's actually providing

Here are some pictures to illustrate what I'm talking about. Notice the logic around IC6200

View attachment 29571

Now here are very similar ICs used in DC-DC converters on the next page. Look at IC6303 (in red), notice the similarity to VRM for RSX ? Notice further, IC6602 (in blue) is doing similar job as the one in red, but with extra resistors, as they are not originally inside the IC, but we still need to use them to get 1.2v
View attachment 29572

Resistors inside BD3520FVM, hence no need to install R1612 and R1614. IC output is already designed to be 1.2v.

View attachment 29573

And here you get to choose your own resistors.
View attachment 29574

The formula for this is luckily inside the datasheet:

View attachment 29576

Let's test the equation with the example of IC6602 and its resistors . R1 is equal to R6606, which is equal to 3900 ohms. Therfore R1= 3900 ohms. R2 in this case would be equal to R6607 + R6609 (dont be confused by double resistors, it was probably done to achieve needed value), so 3300+470 =3770 ohms. R2 = 3770, Now plug these numbers into the formula to calculate Vfb terminal to see what happens. Vout will be 1.2v. So we are finding Vfb. The equation is 1.2=x* ( (3900+3740)/3900), x=0.612 v. Fbd is going to be 0.612v this way. As the text states, Typically Vbd is controlled to achieve 0.65v, so this is close enough..So the formula is true. (side thought: you could actually get perfect 0.65v on Vfb if you drop the 470 ohm resistor and use only 3300 and 3900 ohms as the datasheet suggests. Now I don't know why it was designed to get it down to 0.61v, but Sony engineers probably had a reason). And you could also adjust the output to be different. Remember, anywhere from 0.65 to 2.5v...

Now I apologize for terribly long text , but this might clear things up a bit. So what resistors to replace and which ones to add you may ask? If you plan to keep 1.2.v in that line, I will add that info a bit later as I honestly have been spending too much time on the research...
Click to expand...
I'm guessing IC6200 was changed to allow the manual setting of voltage to 0.95v by populating R6214 and R6216 with the appropriate values as calculated using the equation quote above. RAM can usually accommodate a range of voltages. Heat and electromigration are the consequences of voltages near the high end of the range, but stability can suffer if you push it too low. Whereas the 90nm RSX needed the higher voltage to remain stable, my guess is that the smaller 40nm manufacturing process allowed them to lower the voltage without stability suffering, as one would expect. That jives with what I know about overclocking processors/RAM in general, so it makes sense. I was wondering if this info would pop up again and why these changes were made on that console..lol. So I guess now we know!
vrm-for-rsx-original-jpg.29571

2020-7-6-05-16-00-jpg.26668

Now there may be more than one way to skin this cat, either by replacing IC6200 (BD-3520 with internal resistors set to 1.2v) with one that allows us to set it manually VIA pads on the motherboard (eg. BD-3504), or by replacing Q6200 with the one @botakompong suggests. This latter solution I don't really get though. I can't tell what it is. I recognize the logo (Microchip Technologies) but the case ID code is meaningless when I search for it. I don't see any current N-ch MOSFETs that shed light on the case code either (usually there is a key to the code in the schematics of similar products, but I couldn't find one that helped). Unless that's not an N-ch MOSFT. IDK, but whatever, if it works, it works!

I'm not sure if that's a necessary change because the memory on a 40nm RSX requires 0.95v, or if it's just a power saving feature. There is the possibility that pumping 1.2v into the ram of a 40nm that was expecting 0.95v causes premature electromigration and death. Obviously, if you can get away with lowering the voltage there is a heat advantage. Less heat means better reliability. So no reason not to. I just don't know it's required. Then again we weren't able to find the exact schematic for the RAM, so IDK for sure.
 
Last edited:
RIP-Felix said:
On the COK-001 schematic (3rd ed.), Q6200 is a Si4866DY N-Channel Reduced Q, Fast Switching MOSFET. It's driven by IC6200, an N-Channel MOSFET driver. This is similar to how the other voltages are delivered to the RSX. Q6200 feeds 1.2v_VDDR. R is RAM. Interestingly, on my COK-001 I have what looks like the same Q6200 that picture @Pacorretaco posted from the 65nm SONY Refurbishment COK-002 (an IRF7456). Interesting that the schematic and actual parts on boards differ, but they must be interchangeable. Perhaps it went EOL...IDK.

So this goes back to an older question we had about the compatibility of voltages between generations of the RSX. A while back I wondered if the voltages were all the same or not? After looking at the datasheets for the various RAM modules (or the closest schematic we could find), the voltages were all within the same general range and should work fine. In one of the SONY refirbished consoles (not sure which off the top of my head) @DeadEnd noticed a few of changes made to resistors R6214 and R6216 on IC6200...

I'm guessing IC6200 was changed to allow the manual setting of voltage to 0.95v by populating R6214 and R6214 with the appropriate values as calculated using the equation quote above. RAM can usually accommodate a range of voltages. Heat and electromigration are the consequences of voltages near the high end of the range, but stability can suffer if you push it too low. Whereas the 90nm RSX needed the higher voltage to remain stable, my guess is that the smaller 40nm manufacturing process allowed them to lower the voltage without stability suffering, as one would expect. That jives with what I know about overclocking processors/RAM in general, so it makes sense. I was wondering if this info would pop up again and why these changes were made on that console..lol. So I guess now we know!
vrm-for-rsx-original-jpg.29571

2020-7-6-05-16-00-jpg.26668

Now there may be more than one way to skin this cat, either by replacing IC6200 (BD-3520 with internal resistors set to 1.2v) with one that allows us to set it manually VIA pads on the motherboard (eg. BD-3504), or by replacing Q6200 with the one @botakompong suggests. This latter solution I don't really get though. I can't tell what it is. I recognize the logo (Microchip Technologies) but the case ID code is meaningless when I search for it. I don't see any current N-ch MOSFETs that shed light on the case code either (usually there is a key to the code in the schematics of similar products, but I couldn't find one that helped). Unless that's not an N-ch MOSFT. IDK, but whatever, if it works, it works!

I'm not sure if that's a necessary change because the memory on a 40nm RSX requires 0.95v, or if it's just a power saving feature. There is the possibility that pumping 1.2v into the ram of a 40nm that was expecting 0.95v causes premature electromigration and death. Obviously, if you can get away with lowering the voltage there is a heat advantage. Less heat means better reliability. So no reason not to. I just don't know it's required. Then again we weren't able to find the exact schematic for the RAM, so IDK for sure.
Click to expand...
Man I just love the way you dive deep into these research subjects and share your results with the community. IIRC @botakompong stated it was kinda optional.. When I get the proper tools and experience I might try it on my beloved A01 in case its RSX fails
 
patricksouza472 said:
Man I just love the way you dive deep into these research subjects and share your results with the community. IIRC @botakompong stated it was kinda optional.. When I get the proper tools and experience I might try it on my beloved A01 in case its RSX fails
Click to expand...
Hahaha, most things are optional after all.
Of course,
This is like those who overclock and increase the voltages of their processors 24/7 for better performance, in exchange for longevity (which may or may not be worrying)
They increase the voltage as a necessity in order to sustain the higher clocks and stable operation. They also use better cooling solutions to keep the temperatures under control.

In our case, it turns out we are running the chip at 1.2v instead of the original 0.95v (which is substantial difference). To be fair, we are at the same time using a much bigger heatsink than the original, so the temperatures are still great anyway.
Will it be a problem in the long run? Who knows, probably not.
But since we are not gaining anything by increasing the voltage, we are just stressing the new chip for nothing, while it could be running at its specified voltage.

As Felix says, there's no reason not to do it properly (besides being sloppy). It's not like this is the hardest part of the whole process after all.
 
Now I wonder if it would be possible to bite the bullet and overclock that sucker.

It's a shame how most games ran better on the xbox 360.
Maybe things could change after 15 years?
Hmm
 
Actually yeah, you probably could leave the higher memory voltage to help stabilize a higher GPU frequency. With the beefier heatsink, it may actually be feasable...lol. Jesus Christ...listen to us actually talking about overclocking a BC PS3 with stock cooler. FFS what's wrong with us!
 
Yeah man. We are left with a much higher voltage, and a much bigger heatsink.
All we need to satisfy our craze is a much higher clock speed!
 
Just playing with few xilinx ,not xc2c32a , xc9536xl for few things to know about jtag
xc9536xl.jpg

For some reason I can't see photos added for new modification of boards, on diff windows 7/10 or phone website or tapatalk.it may take time?
 
Last edited:
In case images are not visible to some of you. Just to summarize, as it was earlier confirmed by our friend @botakompong (hope you don't mind me reposting your message), the voltage mod is applicable for 40nm RSX for both Cok-001 and Cok-002.

65nm Rsx presumably doesn't need it.

1. Unplug Q6200 in cok-001
Q6200-Cok-001.jpg
2. replace with Q6200 from another machine (jpt-001, mpx-001, kte-001)
Q6200-Jtp-001.jpg
3. lift pins 2,3 and 4
Q6200-Jsd-001-up2,3,4.jpg
4. ground pins 2 and 3 ( pin 4 nc)
Update cok-001 to 0.jpg
5. finished
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Back
Top