PS3 Frankenstein PHAT PS3: CECHA with 40nm RSX

sandungas said:
There are 4 pad layouts for the CELL, while looking at them i decided to label them using the manufacturing lithography and the numbers of the "pad array", this way:
-90nm 41x41
-65nm 41x41
-45nm 41x41
-45nm 42x42

*The ones with 41x41 are not compatible with each others because there is a squared "hole" at the center without pads... and the number of "missing pads" at that hole is different in between them

In other words... if you take a 65nm or 45nm CELL and try to solder it in a motherboard designed for the 90nm CELL there are going to be some CELL pads at the center that cant be soldered because the motherboard doesnt have pads for them
Click to expand...
Okay good to know, so not only do the pads have different functions but some are also a different configuration.
Could you send me a link to your data/photos so I can update the PSDev wiki with a proper pad layout like I did with the 28nm RSX?
 
I was in the process of making that images in high quality for all the pad layouts of CELL and RSX and to upload them to wiki but something made me stop before completing it, at some point i will upload them but before that i need to review them, the best way to see how different they are just with text is if i tell the number of pads missing at the hole at center this way, the hole are the numbers inside the brackets... im substracting them to calculate the total number of pads

-CELL 90nm 41x41 - (19x19) = 1681 - 361 = 1320 pads
-CELL 65nm 41x41 - (15x17) = 1681 - 255 = 1426 pads
-CELL 45nm 41x41 - (17x17) = 1681 - 289 = 1392 pads
-CELL 45nm 42x42 - (22x18) = 1764 - 396 = 1368 pads

The motherboards that was designed for a 90nm CELL (like the COK-001) only have 1320 pads
I dont know if the pinouts of the pads at the surrounding matches in between the ones using a 41x41 array, but are physically incompatibles because the "hole" at the center
 
i have also seen picture on the pins of cell cpus before a year and i remember too the pins are not the same beetween 90 65 45nm. if they were the same, propably cpu swap beetween nand based consoles would be possible somehow.
 
truemaster said:
i have also seen picture on the pins of cell cpus before a year and i remember too the pins are not the same beetween 90 65 45nm. if they were the same, propably cpu swap beetween nand based consoles would be possible somehow.
Click to expand...
The only NAND console that doesn't have a 90nm RSX&CELL is the CECHG which uses a different syscon to the other NAND console.
The bigger issue I think you're ignoring is that even if you managed to make an interposer for the CELL, and/or the syscon, there's still no guarantee that the console would even interact with the 65nm CELL.
 
Long thread and I can't find a search function, probably has been mentioned before.
Do all 40nm RSXes work with the COK boards, from Slims + Super Slims?
 
DKM said:
Long thread and I can't find a search function, probably has been mentioned before.
Do all 40nm RSXes work with the COK boards, from Slims + Super Slims?
Click to expand...

I think RSX from super slims has lower die level. The IHS will not take contact with it properly. You would need to modify the IHS somehow. @vyktormvmpay25 can comment on that.
 
I suggest last model that comes with ihs bound from factory, ss models are bit thin then usually and ihs won't really get thermal pressure on ic in middle. In 40xx ss they look same but I've tested and got thermal panic. After desolder back I put ihs on top, looking at lights I could see passing light between.
 
That's good to know, maybe it's possible to grind down the IHS on the 4 corners so the middle sticks down a bit more? Depends how accurate one can get it without getting some angular difference.

Does lower die height result in better thermals with that RSX model generally though?
have been thinking of lapping down PS3 dies before when reballing.

Also, apparently I'm blind, found the search bar on the very top right. :smile new: Could have sworn there was nothing there earlier.
 
DoublesAdvocate said:
So far I don't think any of us have done any in depth testing to see if each and every model of 65/40nm RSX will work, a safe bet is the CXD5300AGB and CXD5300A1GB models
Click to expand...

Pretty sure @botakompong has said that they will all work except from 28nm. The thing is, I often chatted with him off the forum and that's how I know. But I guess it's not enough if I just come out and claim it like that. So once he actually posts it himself, then everybody trusts it better :D

Same thing for the frankensteins. I have talked with him and eventually learned that he knew about every single voltage change that was done by Sony while we were still trying to figure this out by measuring the resistors. We just didn't think to ask. He cut corners by not doing the voltage adjustments for Cell and RSX Vddcore, because he didn't always have the necessary resistors. He told me also it's best to follow the sony method, because they did it for a reason. The reason is to achieve lower voltage thresholds which was mentioned in this thread by me, by @lcferrum and then analyzed comprehensively by @RIP-Felix in here https://www.psx-place.com/threads/f...nd-error-reporting.30100/page-105#post-317469

DeadEnd said:
By the way, remember my analysis on the voltage configuration? https://www.psx-place.com/threads/f...cecha-with-40nm-rsx.28069/page-12#post-272975
So basically I was right about the change from BD3520 to BD3004 with the new resistors around it to form a different voltage output. It is what Sony did for the 0.95v mod, except they have additionally made one more change to the IC6201 (NCP5318), because it is also needed to reconfigure new power thresholds for VRM core. This was discovered once again thanks to @botakompong .
Click to expand...
lcferrum said:
. I think, if Sony has really done this mod, the reason for it was to have less tight tolerance for PWRGOOD signal after they found out what resource heavy games can do to voltage ripple on both CELL/BE and RSX. So it should also be beneficial to standard Phats. But it's definitely not a prerequisite for RSX replacement.
Click to expand...
RIP-Felix said:
Adjusting Power Good Threshold
Vid pins VID0-5 on the buck controller form a 6-digit code corresponding to the Vout No load setpoint. Power Good Vmin and Vmax thresholds are relative to that set point. With the stock COK-00X voltage divider values (15K and 20k), Vmin = -163mV. Vmax is always +100mV. The Vout voltage cannot deviate more than that. If it does power good goes low and the SYSCON will error.

In some official SONY refurbished consoles, new resistor values (27K and 10K) change Vmin = -400mV. So the Low Voltage threshold is now more than twice as low, allowing much more voltage ripple before it triggers an error. My hypothesis is SONY did this to reduce the frequency of 1001 and 1002's errors. That would explain why they did it to both buck controllers (CPU and GPU). A sort of admission of guilt that they either set it too aggressively or were compensating for bad NEC/TOKINs without replacing them.
Power good low voltage threshold is there to prevent system instability, but if SONY decided it was okay to loosen it, then perhaps we can follow suit. It could be particularly important because we're seeing a lot of unexplained 1001's recently. Currently, 1002's are assumed to be bad NEC/TOKIN's. Replacing aged bulk filter capacitors certainly works, but just because changing them fixes the error doesn't mean that's the only way to skin a cat.
Click to expand...

He also didn't want to perform the "complex" change of the voltage IC BD3520 and the surrounding configuration resistors because it would have taken more time. He had a lot of ps3s to fix and he needed a faster method. So he came up with an "easier" Mosfet-to-IC exchange, but that's another cut corner. It worked out for him, but if you want to be thorough, then it's best to repeat the Sony style if possible.

DeadEnd said:
To continue the voltage mod saga, I also wanted to bring up one clarification with regards to replacing the mosfet to get the necessary 0.95v voltage (simpler method). As we have already seen, the Q6200 on Cok-001/002 is indeed a mosfet. But Q6200 on slim boards is a whole step-down voltage regulator (or something similar to it). It is NOT a mosfet. What we do is we ignore the gate pin that comes from BD3520 and simply feed 1.7v and 3.3v into the regulator (not sure which one is VCC for the IC itself) to bring it down to 0.95 as a fixed output. This is how it's done on slim boards, the stepdown buck is integrated into the IC itself so there is no need for BD3520 to control the output, because the new regulator can take care of it on its own. That's from my understanding.

I'm sorry if this was obvious to everybody all along, I did not care to analyze how do we actually receive 0.95v that way. But now I somewhat understand it.
Click to expand...

DeadEnd said:
Continuing with a bit more digging on the voltage regulator used in the mod. I checked again the IC that we are taking out of slim boards and the pinout marked by @botakompong was this one.

View attachment 35031

The logo on the chip is Microchip technologies (used to be called Micrel), but I for the life of me could not find a regulator that would have the same package or pinout under their brand. But I came across something that has a very similar pinout - IC3502, Mitsumi MM1761KHBE (I'm not saying this is the IC in slim, I'm only hinting it would be of a similar type of IC.)
View attachment 35033

As you can see it can produce voltage that is close enough to 0.95 v. By the way this is a FlexIO Core voltage supply, so it has to be fixed output (it is fixed from BD3520 as well, but we are just ignoring it by placing our own regulator instead of the mosfet).
Click to expand...

That's not to say the mod wouldn't work if you follow the Orbis mod steps that were outlined in my first video.
My only point is that the voltage modifications found in refurbished boards are more "proper".

I'm not making any of this up. I have actually chatted with him about it all. @botakompong can you confirm this for everybody's peace of mind ? :)

I have attempted to explain all of this in my latest video. But I don't think it's reaching the crowds as easily as my first one. This thread is also a bit of a carousel. A lot of the same information is being repeated but is easily skipped by many only to be later repeated or asked about again and again... I think the moment things get a bit more technical, it is either easily skipped over or just doesn't register in the readers' minds. There are too many pages to go through in order to find the right information.
 
Last edited:
To soft, to sensitive, got killed 2 rsx , I have said is not good enough for this type of ic design. I've stopped after I've killed 2 rsx one 65 and one 40nm, they give less with 5 Celsius but it also seems to move around when fan will blow unless use that spunge as ps5.
It comes hard to explain again what is purpose of IHS (inter heat spacer). Why our chips are popcorning when we jump with high temperature straight and not following an thermal profile process. This is a high hint in reflow/reball process that I have understand many years ago. I thought people understand it by now.
 
Last edited:
yes cheap nail polish, on time of test didnt bound back ish with adhesive silicon,probably that is why. I realy say it should work well with normal thermal paste,not as liquid will kick with cold temp,that also can kill rsxunstability in temp,just not right ic for that.put a working phone in fridge,what will happen? reversed efect.I just aproch as factory did,not much to think further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Back
Top