STOP! Just STOP!
Something to ponder!
I want to address claims circulating around the community that a soldering iron and a UV light are clear evidence that the 90nm are all defective.
What i cannot fathom nor understand is.
Someone who holds themselves to such a high standard in the ps3 community is using absurd methods that hold no credit to the point they are trying to prove.
That point being the 90nm RSX all being defective.
Now a conical tip, a soldering iron and a UV light seem to be cogent enough to the PS3 online community to demonstrate something that cannot be proven without the vetting of a professional company (Which would cost tens of thousands of dollars.)
whom actually work the field or SONY announcing this themselves.
With these ridiculous assumptions and pseudo
processes that are being carried out to satisfy others of an issue that no one to this day has any technical verification of, that there is in effect defects with the 90nm RSX.
I could bang on for pages with my firsthand experience with the 90nm RSX but it’s not needed.
I am shedding light on the pseudo-science going on in the background that holds NO weight at all.
Aliens building the pyramids are more credible than what community members are trying to justify regarding the 90nm RSX with a soldering iron and UV light!
I also want to address “stress testing” these particular consoles after a repair/reball.
I have personally been bashed with the community keyboard warriors because I do not comply with their standards and beliefs that they have only recently become accustomed to.
The community standard is, according to these users, a 3 day stress test. That is the only way your repaired console should be tested according to these community members.
Despite the fact it could fail at 4 days, 4 weeks or 4 years but and I emphasize “BUT” a 3 day stress test is the only way you, I and the rest of the world should think and act!
Do as your told child! Why?
Why change what works when it comes to ones methods and processes, especially if these methods and processes work and have been working for many many years.
These community members are trying to convince themselves and the new gen of tweenies coming through on a 20 year old console that I myself have been working on for 16+ years now.
Why are these few community members trying to convince the world that it’s their way or you and the rest are just no good and have got it all wrong!
It’s a very toxic and divided community.
Another pompous claim being made by a few PS3 community members is that a “warranty” is just not utilised by the consumer. They lay claim to the majority of consumers “just throw their devices away”. This is absolutely absurd!
Why would you spend $400, $800, $1000 or more just to send it to landfill in a week, a month, a year when you have warranty to utilise??
The community members are trying to use this as a case as to why 1000’s of 90nm reballed PS3’s just never come back to the repairer for any reason and have never been seen again, so the majority of them have failed and just thrown away! Cmon guys. This is just RIDICULOUS!
7 thoughts on “STOP! Just STOP!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I understand your experience but there is strong evidence that the 90nm is defective first if you look at the 90nm RSX it lacks any adhesion promoter that is found on all 65nm and 40nm that poke test and uv test your referring to is important because it shows that the underfill material used in the 90nm RSX behaves identical to a known bad 360 chip. I’ve personally tested the “Bumpgate” theory on over 50 console not a huge number but every console I had with a 90nm RSX didn’t respond at all to a pressure test because you can push the bumps through the underfill but every single console after heat only the RSX die t0 100°c which isn’t reflowing anything strictly just alowing the die to reseat all 50 consoles booted after that they did fail soon after but it shows the defective regeion of the problem is under the die BGA can fail but its far less common in 90nm consoles. Consoles 33 COK-001 AND COK-002 10 SEM-001, and 7 DIA-001 all console had less that 150 days of use thats only 3,600 hours what are the odds of BGA failing on 50 console at low usage i just don’t see it.
A “poke test” with a soldering iron is as far from science or “strong evidence” that can be or attempt to prove anything is faulty, let alone an RSX. C’mon!
It’s exrtremely comical is what it is!
There is NO evidence that NVIDIA even touched an RSX package also.
These ridiculous attempts to prove something that no one in the PS3 scene can prove, let alone with a god damn soldering iron!
Experience far outweighs a soldering iron and a uv light in attempt to sabotage “underfil” in my eyes and experience!
Again! You cannot get any farther away from the scientific truth with this stupid testing theory.
Your correct that the poke test isn’t substantial on its own. But I’d like to point out that I have 7 DIA-001 Motherboards with less then 150 days with 3034 errors but I also have 10 DIA-002 motherboard with over 1000 days on all of them with 1002 replaced tomins
This substantiates nothing with that sample rate unfortunately. The sample rate I come from is 1000’s of boards over tens of years!
The only difference between A DIA-001 and DIA-002 is having a 65nm RSX but these consoles are tanks when they do fail its mostly tokins not 3034 BGA/Bumps error I think that shows how unreliable a 90nm RSX is. I owned a A01 that I bought new In December 2006 it died 4 times to YLOD on the warranty before being deemed unreliable and was send a newer G01 that also died within a year which is when I upgraded to a 160gb CECHP01 console worked perfectly until I sold it in 2015 also had a 65nm
Who are you trying to convince?
There is definitely something going on with these chip generations. From your spreadsheet on the other post, it can clearly be seen that 90nm RSX is so-so regarding reliability, meaning the difference between just some caps and BGA.
The worst thing is that people quickly jump on the 40nm bandwagon when TSMC did a very poor job at the time. Your spreadsheet shows it. TSMC 40nm is trash compared to Sony and even Sony/Toshiba 90nm. I had a mac mini running light stuff for a CNC machine at good temperatures and the AMD 40nm chip died. I also had a CECH-3000 PS3 arriving with apparently BGA cracks just from shipping. I know it’s not good for any chip to be banged around but these in particular failed immediately. Garbage!
Now take a look at 65nm: No TSMC, lower power than 90 and maybe some package tweaks they’ve done and as far as I’m concerned, it’s the most reliable RSX revision ever. They’ll go through a pair of caps before seeing any other defect.
What I also discovered, though I’m not 100% sure, is that there might be different fan curves between early A/B models. Someone on YT got a fairly new B and for some reason, syscon would ramp up the fan way later compared to what I’ve seen with my A or the YTber’s other A machine. Maybe the 90s that died simply died from lazy fan curves – high temps. I asked him to pull both syscon fan curves of the A and B and compare. Hope I’ll hear from him soon. I’m really curious.
There’s definitely something going on here. Some 90s last hundreds of days and only go through caps while others die of BGA at 30 days.
I got mine at 169 (nice!) days and it definitely ran at syscon fan curve with only a thermal paste change by the original owner who knows when. It now has 177 days and it’s running like a champ at around 52-54C all the time. 0 errors in syscon as well with 2042 power ons and 2025 power offs. Well used and kept I’d say for the only 17 improper shutdowns. It’s a Toshiba made, b08, 2971DGB, bin 3 (1.31V! stock) chip.
Only through big datasets we can see the situation closest to reality of what’s been up with these chips.
P.S.: If we go by the UV thingie method, a Wii I delidded went very green under UV while the 90nm RSX didn’t.