This is 30% difference this is not so far from the 40% between Xbox One and PS, this is bad and worse from a marketing and PR point of view single digit against double digit a bad position to defend.
Last edited:
Baseless Next Generation Rumors with no Technical Merits [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
This is 30% difference this is not so far from the 40% between Xbox One and PS, this is bad and worse from a marketing and PR point of view single digit against double digit a bad position to defend.
DavidGraham
Veteran
The PS4 and Xbox One difference was 50%, PS4 Pro and Xbox One X difference was also 50%.
So this is lower than either cases.
AbsoluteBeginner
Regular
What does competitive on power mean to you? Do you think they are aware what MS is doing when they design their chip? They design their own chip around certain parameters. These include die size, price point, TDP and form factor.
When Sony designed it, and if they are to release Oberon the way it was leaked, they must have thought its gonna be hard to top it (and it will). From the leak they pushed the clocks extra hard, went for narrow bus for smaller die but fastest chips available. What could MS do to counter this if they are shooting for same price point? Not much, if anything. Its very definition of pushing the boundaries of console design, and its considerably further then they gone with PS4 or Pro. Even PS3 would come behind if TDP is concerned...
And X has 50% advantage over PS4Pro in terms of TF yet no one bats an eye. People will say it came 1 year earlier, but it used same 16nm process and same Polaris building block, therefore Sony could have built PS4Pro like MS did with X even in 2016. Obviously, there was more to it then "hurr dur its not enough TF". There is price and BC consideration which Sony thought was more important then pushing clocks and CUs up for 1-2TF more.
It is very different X and Pro are mid gen and Pro arrive one year earlier.
PS5 and Xbox Series X and probably Series S will define the generation.
No, it was 40% difference.
1.84 TF ps4
1.31 TF Xbox One
Difference is 40%.
Later was 1.4 TF Xbox One S
There are big differences in memory bandwidth in both PS4 / XB1 and Pro / XBX. Which won't probably be the case between PS5 and next Xbox
This is the case too.
AbsoluteBeginner
Regular
PS4 advantage over Xbox One
XBX advantage over PS4 Pro
Arden advantage over Oberon
So, Arden's advantage over Oberon would be round about half that of XBX over PS4Pro.
When compared to PS4 v Xbone, difference can be considered small.
AbsoluteBeginner
Regular
And if MS went with 2SKU strat, it automatically gives them advantage over Sony when it comes to chip manufacturing. With big SKU they can go 400mm2+, knowing most people will go for smaller SKU which has ~200mm2 die. Therefore, they will have enough of both for stock, and will be able to parade best performance AND best price.
If Sony goes for 1 SKU, as it looks like, then they will have to make concious decision over die size as change from 320mm2 to 400mm2 can result in much higher price, low yields and not enough stock.
Problem for Sony is, they probably didn't know about dual SKU until it was far too late to react. Chip design is multi year and multi million process, especially at 7nm. You can't just turn switch on/off and get new chip in few months time.
I'm still a proponent of the 320-bit bus with mixed capacity chips for XBSX. I think it makes sense in a console where software will be written according to a known memory configuration (as opposed to PC) and that the limited capacity of full bandwidth memory won't be an issue given the 3GB OS reservation and the need to store non GPU-related data structures. It'll be interesting to see if they do actually use this configuration and Sony chooses one of: 320-bit bus with 20GB of memory, 256-bit bus with 16 GB of memory, 256-bit, 16 + 4GB DDR4, something else.
I don't think it will be a big problem for Sony out of US and UK. People will not buy the low cost version digital only and less powerful. They can use good marketing against it. And the brand is much stronger on Sony side. They just need to not goes up of 399 euros. Here in Europe after June 2014, the Xbox One was often cheaper and it changed nothing.
Sony told the first day buyer are spending out of hardware on average 1600 dollars during the fist five years of Ps4 life. Some of this big spender will want the most powerful console. From a financial point of view, no all buyer are equalf for plaftfom holder.
Alternatively, MS produce two units. The small unit is rejected by the market for being not powerful enough, and the large unit is rejected as being too expensive...
Alternatively, Sony considered the possibility of two SKUs and thought it could go badly and a single, mid-range common-ground was the best option for the platform.
No-one actually knows how a business decision is going to turn out until it's executed. Once upon a time, MS thought TVTVTV was a great way to sell a console, and Sony thought there was no upper limit to what their fans would be willing to pay. The choice of single or multiple performance options at launch isn't something revolutionary that one company failed to appreciate and consider an option. Both know what they're doing. Both chose different paths. Neither is inherently better or wrong at this point, and we'll have to see how the next-gen pans out to see who picked right, which is more luck than judgement as technically there's no superior option (otherwise both would be doing the same thing
).9.2TF should be a $449 console.
$399 will make huge loss for them.
7nm+ started volume production in 2019 Q2. The yield was matching 7nm in October.
If we considered 16nm, PS4 slim launched with this process after 13 months of 16nm volume production. And PS5 should be around 18 months after 7nm+ volume production. Imo there is sufficient time.
Sony can do faster transition at 499 Euo/49980 yen because xbox brand is super weak in these area.
Sony only needs to have better discount in US for example，$499 with Call of Duty，or $399 for 6 months.
He also said VRS in both consoles.His first message was defending Andrew Reiner nothing more. He comes saying the github leak information aren't up to date and Matt era mod too said the information are outdated.
He is not the only one to said the two consoles have nearly the same power
Basically we have spec sheet since january 2019 for Xbox. After things change and I think PS5 is less powerful than Xbox.
What "things" have changed? You mentioned several times. Do you have insider info indicate that PS5 is less powerful?
I live in Continental Europe and 499 and 449 euros is a bad price at least in France, Spain and probably Italy, Portugal. Better to let people spend this 100 euros in games and accessories, this part is profitable for Sony.
AbsoluteBeginner
Regular
Sony said PS4 average user SPENDS $1600 during the lifetime of console, which doesn't mean Sony gets these $1600. Thats a big difference.
Another difference is what do you consider powerful. I think 5700XT equivalent with RT/VRS, 8 core Zen2, bespoke SSD configuration, 3D Audio and 16GB of fastest available GDDR6 RAM is VERY impressive for console box. Its MUCH more then they went with back in 2013 and 2016.
Transition will depend on how people perceive the new PS versus the old one, and has nothing to do with XB. Historical evidence on sales versus price suggest a €500 console will suffer slower sales than previous €400 consoles. Why do you think a €500 PS5 will sell faster than the €400 PS4 did, especially when the performance increase is proportionally worse than from PS3 > PS4?
I am just realistic after seeing the Scarlett chip. No magic trick no 7nm+, no dual GPU or other stuff.
I just think the SSD will be much faster on Ps5 side reading the patent
AbsoluteBeginner
Regular
You have to wonder how much is AMD going to ask for royalties? Back in 2013, they were going downhill and their CPU tech was abysmal. 2020...They are looking better then ever, have more customers then they can cope with and their tech is pinnacle in tech world. Obviously, Nvidia GPUs are still better, but in upper mid range realm MS and Sony will buying at, you have to think they have incredibly strong portfolio.
No need to go into details on CPU side, its currently most sought after CPU on the market.
So, bigger dies on more expensive process (wafers for 7nm are 2x the price of the 16nm ones) + much more expensive design of chip + very likely higher royalties for AMD = serious price if you are shooting for huge dies. And since 360mm2 Scarlett die resulted in 499$ console, I can't think of 320mm2 on 7nm being much less expensive in todays world.
No need to go into details on CPU side, its currently most sought after CPU on the market.
So, bigger dies on more expensive process (wafers for 7nm are 2x the price of the 16nm ones) + much more expensive design of chip + very likely higher royalties for AMD = serious price if you are shooting for huge dies. And since 360mm2 Scarlett die resulted in 499$ console, I can't think of 320mm2 on 7nm being much less expensive in todays world.
Still mid-range for a 2021 product.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
