Baseless Next Generation Rumors with no Technical Merits [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]

[goonergaz]

You're not going to save even $100 on the BOM with a 12 TF SOC and 4TF variant. You'd have to reduce a lot of the console - RAM, storage, etc - to get a machine $200 cheaper than the rumoured XBSX specs.

Thanks, I genuinely thought I was going mad! lol I'm so wrong so often...I just wanted to understand where I was wrong this time!

 

[Picao84]

You're not going to save even $100 on the BOM with a 12 TF SOC and 4TF variant. You'd have to reduce a lot of the console - RAM, storage, etc - to get a machine $200 cheaper than the rumoured XBSX specs.

What do you mean? I'm not debating the 12TF Anaconda here, just the 4TFlop Lockhart? Why are you grouping them up together on the same BOM? I'm not saying Lockhart will use the same APU as Anaconda? I never said XSX will be 199???

Edit - Additionally I did mention reductions in other areas as well? Googernaz only focused on the GPU for some reason.

"Because the GPU occupies the most space on an APU? CPU area is tiny in comparison. This APU (4TFlops) in 7nm could probably be around 125 - 150 mm2 if not less. Plus it would not only be only the APU, less GPU power requires less memory as well, it could have only 8GB for example in a narrower bus. The whole BOM would be smaller. Again this is for the original 4TF Lockhart."

 

[Picao84]

PS5 controllers will transfer and PSNow says hi.


You're missing my point. The PS4 GPU only cost $150 - how are you going to save $200 from a part that costs $150!? I'm genuinely curious how they could launch this console at $200.

Are you implying that Lockhart will use the PS4 APU?
Plus, I hope you are aware that consoles do not use discrete GPUs???

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Edit - PS4 APU was done in ancient by now node, there were almost 4 jumps - 16 to 14 to 12 to 10 to 7. This is greatly simplifying it, but it is a very large jump nonetheless. The PS4 APU die size was 325 mm2. What I'm estimating would be 40% of the size. With 40% of the size you not only increase yields but also have more dies per wafer, hence potentially much lower cost.

That maths only works if your planning on using the PS4 SOC in Lockhart. Your starting point needs to be Anaconda if Lockhart is that architecture cut back. Anaconda needs whatever die size it needs to fit 12 TF GPU and 8 core Zen into an SOC, something like 400 mm². Lockhart size will be derived from that, maybe half the size (1/3 of the GPU, everything else the same). So, 200 mm². Half the silicon is half the cost, plus maybe a bit more savings due to improved yields although the low defect rate at TSMC suggests possibly not. Of a $150 SOC, that's $75 saving. Anaconda would need to be a $200 part for a cut-down 4TF variation to save $100.

For comparison, PS4's BOM had $188 combined for SOC and RAM. Now imagine Sony released a PS4 Lite with 1/3 the flops, akin to Lockhart vs Anaconda. If they kept the RAM the same, that might be all of $50 cheaper.

 

[iroboto]

PS5 controllers will transfer and PSNow says hi.

Sure it's a valid statement. And I wrote that not as a list war. But just as someone looking at the xbox ecosystem would see how to mitigate that high cost.

But realistically as per your comments:

• Will PS4 controllers will contain all the haptic feedback changes that PS5 ones do? No.
• and PS Now launches with PS5 exclusives day 1? Not yet.
• PS5 can play those PSNow PS3-1 titles locally in hardware? Not yet

I don't think these points will matter though for those interested at PS5.
It's on MS to sell greater value for XSX to get poeple to look at their console.
It's not quite the same for Sony.

People are looking forward on Sony's console. Controllers and PS4 backwards compat will be good for them for users already looking to continue with Sony. Games are enough to continue to draw more from the Xbox crowd.

 

[Picao84]

That maths only works if your planning on using the PS4 SOC in Lockhart. Your starting point needs to be Anaconda if Lockhart is that architecture cut back. Anaconda needs whatever die size it needs to fit 12 TF GPU and 8 core Zen into an SOC, something like 400 mm². Lockhart size will be derived from that, maybe half the size (1/3 of the GPU, everything else the same). So, 200 mm². Half the silicon is half the cost, plus maybe a bit more savings due to improved yields although the low defect rate at TSMC suggests possibly not. Of a $150 SOC, that's $75 saving. Anaconda would need to be a $200 part for a cut-down 4TF variation to save $100.

For comparison, PS4's BOM had $188 combined for SOC and RAM. Now imagine Sony released a PS4 Lite with 1/3 the flops, akin to Lockhart vs Anaconda. If they kept the RAM the same, that might be all of $50 cheaper.

Again, I spoke about other things as well, like less RAM and a narrower bus. Storage would probably be harmstrung as well to half.

 

[goonergaz]

Are you implying that Lockhart will use the PS4 APU?
Plus, I hope you are aware that consoles do not use discrete GPUs???

What I'm saying is a console will have parts which make up a BoM. From the BoM you make your RRP. The GPU/APU/whatever you want to call it is just one element. Last gen that part cost was around $150...what will Lockhart part cost and where is the rest of the $200 (but more likely $300) savings?

 

[Picao84]

What I'm saying is a console will have parts which make up a BoM. From the BoM you make your RRP. The GPU/APU/whatever you want to call it is just one element. Last gen that part cost was around $150...what will Lockhart part cost and where is the rest of the $200 savings?

No, you don't make your RRP solely based on your BOM. You make it based on your strategy and what the competition is doing. Consoles in the past did lose money at launch. It's a strategy to get as much adoption as quickly as possible.

Plus this generation the part may cost 75. What 200 dollar savings? It's not only about savings, it's about profit margins, they are flexible according to what strategy Microsoft decides to implement. It's not like Microsoft never bleed money for a product before..

The only way I have ever understood Lockhart existence was as a bargain bin part to attract users to the Microsoft gaming ecosystem, with an impulse buy level of pricing, hence the 199. If they start pricing at 299 when a more powerfull PS5 retails for only 100 more, that part is DOA. It's completely outside of the impulse buy spectrum and too close to a proper next generation gaming system. Plus, if there are 8TFlops of difference between Anaconda and Lockart the selling price has to reflect that, surely people won't see the value in getting such a gimped console like you called it for 299 if Anaconda retails for 499. They would go with the 9TF PS5 for only 100 more.

 

[goonergaz]

No, you don't make your RRP solely based on your BOM. You make it based on your strategy and what the competition is doing. Consoles in the past did lose money at launch. It's a strategy to get as much adoption as quickly as possible.

Plus this generation the part may cost 75. What 200 dollar savings? It's not only about savings, it's about profit margins, they are flexible according to what strategy Microsoft decides to implement. It's not like Microsoft never bleed money for a product before..

I'm sorry but I can't comprehend this conversation direction, obviously MS might take a hit - but at the end of the day I'm extremely confident we won't be seeing a $200 Lockhart...it would be so gimped it's untrue with most noise suggesting it's mainly the TF that's the difference between the 2, otherwise there's no point - just stick with X.

 

[KirkSi]

I think MS shouldn't go higher than $499 USD. It would be a premium cost like X1X.

As for catching up, they were never going to catch up. What MS bought with X1X aside from building back their goodwill with their own customers are
a) fully fleshing out their BC technology (with upgrades)
b) fully understanding how to do boost mode and AF upgrades
c) understanding up front how to test/develop and cool a device effectively
d) understand the sales data between their lower priced console and their higher priced console
e) know consumer feedback on how they feel with the new X1X.

So you've got this halo/premium product out now. It's expensive. So how do you make it cheaper for buyers to buy into the ecosystem
a) fully BC back 3 generations with X1X upgrades to boot (all saves on cloud - no transfers necessary)
b) controllers and accessories fully back compatible
c) game pass to give players instant libraries with fresh new exclusives titles with minimal cost.

The biggest challenge with new console launches, is the setup cost to get a new controller and buy some games to use your device with.
With this new setup, the total cost to get into the ecosystem is significantly lowered. So it may work out well with budget minded people here.

If you suspect that PS5 is $399, well add a controller and 1 game and you're north of $499.
With XSX at $499 and say 1 free month of game pass (15 days, is what they gave us for X1X) you're at $499 + 100 games and new exclusives for a small while. Controllers transfer. It's not a terrible deal.
As long as people feel justified in their purchase they will be happy about it.

I don't disagree with your thinking here and I'm not sure I'm totally sold on a two tier SKU approach either. I think the bit that appeals to me is that it would transition more people over quicker and devs could be done with having to support jaguar CPU cores all the quicker. I know they've said they'll have cross gen support for 1-2 years, but if they only have one premium SKU at the start then I'd worry that the transition would be extended beyond that. I'm not sure how much the price will drop over that two year period to bring over the more cost conscious gamers. Prices of RAM don't seem to be dropping too much and I can't see massive savings on the SSDs over that time period so it'd be in the yield of the SOC I guess, but will that let you hit $299 in two years?

Full BC and game pass will be a bonus for sure, it'll soften the blow of upgrading and also possibly encourage those gamers that moved from 360 to PS4 due to MSs Xbox One disastrous launch messaging to possibly buy an Xbox again. As I said, I like the two SKU approach for a faster transition to the new hardware and features it will bring (SSDs, Zen2 and RDNA with RT) but I'm cautious as to how it will be adopted by the third party developers. If they don't like having to scale for two SKUs and they don't have to for the PS5 then it won't be good for Xbox. I have game pass and play most of the first part exclusives, but the games I put the most hours into have all been third party (Battlefield, Distiny, The Division and Borderlands). Third party support is key for me personally which is why I want MS to catch up slightly in terms of sales (but not necessarily 'win' as I want them hungry still) so it's worth third party devs giving good support to Xbox. If, due to the sales numbers, they'll sell three times as many copies on the PS5 than the new Xbox then I'd expect more effort to be directed to where the money is.

 

[Picao84]

I'm sorry but I can't comprehend this conversation direction, obviously MS might take a hit - but at the end of the day I'm extremely confident we won't be seeing a $200 Lockhart...it would be so gimped it's untrue with most noise suggesting it's mainly the TF that's the difference between the 2, otherwise there's no point - just stick with X.

I don't think Microsoft has ever seen Lockhart as an upgrade path to X users, it's there for Xbox One users only to upgrade. It would also be cheaper to manufacture than the X, which is obviously going to be deprecated.

If you read what I added on the post you quoted afterwards you might understand where I'm coming from.

 

[iroboto]

I don't disagree with your thinking here and I'm not sure I'm totally sold on a two tier SKU approach either. I think the bit that appeals to me is that it would transition more people over quicker and we could be done with having to support jaguar CPU cores all the quicker. I know they've said they'll have cross gen support for 1-2 years, but if they only have one premium SKU at the start then I'd worry that the transition would be extended beyond that. I'm not sure how much the price will drop over that two year period to bring over the more cost conscious gamers. Prices of RAM don't seem to be dropping too much and I can't see massive savings on the SSDs over that time period so it'd be in the yield of the SOC I guess, but will that let you hit $299 in two years?

There was a reason that they released on the same node, without any new tech but launch a year later for X1X. Prices had to come down to make $499. And it took a year after 4Pro. My answer to you is: i don't know.
But mass transitions have costs to the company.
- need a lot of units up front or things just go perma out of stock anyway.
- harder to figure out where your inventory should be going
etc.
MS isn't Sony. They don't have the same advantages, in particular sony's distribution channels are way better than MS globally. They might actually want a slower paced launch with XSX. A lower peak but with more consistent sales over the long run.

There's other things to consider here. Sony needs to sell globally. That's their nature. They kick ass everywhere. MS has not, and it may not want to. It may try to do global success via Xcloud or some other method. MS needs to be much more efficient with their money here. Just because the pcoketbook is open, doesn't mean they can toss cash around freely. Right now a lot more money needs to be invested into gamepass. And we see a lot of money being invested into Mixer (which is likely not having the results that gamepass is).

There's a lot to consider here.

 

[KirkSi]

There was a reason that they released on the same node, without any new tech but launch a year later for X1X. Prices had to come down to make $499. And it took a year after 4Pro. My answer to you is: i don't know.
But mass transitions have costs to the company.
- need a lot of units up front or things just go perma out of stock anyway.
- harder to figure out where your inventory should be going
etc.
MS isn't Sony. They don't have the same advantages, in particular sony's distribution channels are way better than MS globally. They might actually want a slower paced launch with XSX. A lower peak but with more consistent sales over the long run.

There's other things to consider here. Sony needs to sell globally. That's their nature. They kick ass everywhere. MS has not, and it may not want to. It may try to do global success via Xcloud or some other method.

Yeah, regionalisation is an issue for MS for sure. Jez Corden wrote an article on it not long ago. As things stand most of MS stock would go to the USA and UK as those are their strongest markets. If MS do want to make inroads into Sony's sales (and I seem to recall Phil Spencer saying that they wanted to reach 2 billion gamers) then they need to increase their infrastructure in other regions. Sony absolutely kills Xbox on mainland Europe.

As to the upfront costs, I'm sure MS can afford the outlay initially to gain a bigger marketshare in the long run. I think MS want to tie you up to subscriptions now, whether that be Office 365 or Xbox game pass. A long term customer is a good customer. There was no way they could turn around the sales last gen. At the start of a new gen is a new opportunity though. Go hard at the start, get out of the gate fast and keep the momentum as Sony did and the revenue will come through more subscriptions. Slow momentum at the start and all the messaging will be with their competitor and that will buy mindshare. You could be right and they might be going for a slow burn, but I personally think it'd be the wrong approach.

 

[chris1515]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ne...a-pace-never-seen-before.165711/post-28658688

Here come a new challenger

I will not give any numerical data, and I will explain the reason.

As you will understand, it is not information I can give. Not even any developer with two front fingers will tell you, it would mean being fired automatically and facing possible legal consequences. If a developer gives you that information, it's not very smart. On the other hand, when I registered, I wanted to make it very clear in my presentation message that I did not come here to give information that could commit me or someone.

Likewise, it is true that it doesn't matter what I can tell you, I mean that I would not get you out of doubt, because the information I may have is current. That is, it is not the definitive one (which does not mean that there is no such definitive information, I simply do not know it).

What I can say is that you are making films of biblical proportions and based on data that, if true, were 1 year ago in a given circumstance. But do you really believe that real data is filtered? And I understand that this is because of the lack of information, and if there is no information, then people make it up based on personal interests. And you have to understand that many people are interested in generating interest and debate, for example by publishing something and deleting it at the moment. Guys, we already have an age to know how this works.

First, what TF? The TF of Marketing? Or the effective TF? I understand that people need to know (and I need to explain, but I have to bite my nails) but what you really should care to know is that, in practice, one could have more TF than the other and give less performance. You should think less about TF and think more about machine balance.

This generation will NOT be the generation of the visual difference that makes you decide what to buy. It will be the generation of the games. Yes, one will be faster than another (but you will not notice it in practice). One will load the screen in 10 seconds and the other in 7 seconds. One will have a better sound than the other. One will run the game at 60fps and the other ... too. What will really matter will be the quality that development studies can achieve with their time and budget.

What you will have to do this generation is to think what game you want and what platform it is on. And if it is for multiplatform games, buy the cheapest one or where you have more friends, because you will not notice the difference (yes, there are people who are able to perceive a laser pointer on the moon, and others like to play 30cm from the TV trying to find out if the 4K is native or scaled by switching quickly between different video inputs to find out the difference to justify their purchase, but those people are not happy. Fortunately, those people will have it very difficult in the next generation... in multiplatform games).

(And yes, PC graphics cards will always be better. And also much more expensive and less exploited. What happens is that NOT all games are on PC. For those who have forgotten, this is the key, the games).

The new consoles will not disappoint. Not me, at least.

I'm sorry, I don't have more time for now.

Cheers.

the guy is verified

https://www.resetera.com/members/bgs.63252/

 

[Picao84]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ne...a-pace-never-seen-before.165711/post-28658688

Here come a new challenger



the guy is verified

https://www.resetera.com/members/bgs.63252/

Well, that was a whole lot of nothing.

 

[Esrever]

This APU (4TFlops) in 7nm could probably be around 125 - 150 mm2 if not less.

No way, Renior is 150mm^2 and it comes with 8 zen 2 cores and only 8CUs for slightly more than 1TF. You'd need at least to be bigger than that for 4TF.

 

[iroboto]

Yeah, regionalisation is an issue for MS for sure. Jez Corden wrote an article on it not long ago. As things stand most of MS stock would go to the USA and UK as those are their strongest markets. If MS do want to make inroads into Sony's sales (and I seem to recall Phil Spencer saying that they wanted to reach 2 billion gamers) then they need to increase their infrastructure in other regions. Sony absolutely kills Xbox on mainland Europe.

You can only achieve getting anywhere close to this number via the cloud.

As to the upfront costs, I'm sure MS can afford the outlay initially to gain a bigger marketshare in the long run. I think MS want to tie you up to subscriptions now, whether that be Office 365 or Xbox game pass. A long term customer is a good customer. There was no way they could turn around the sales last gen. At the start of a new gen is a new opportunity though. Go hard at the start, get out of the gate fast and keep the momentum as Sony did and the revenue will come through more subscriptions. Slow momentum at the start and all the messaging will be with their competitor and that will buy mindshare. You could be right and they might be going for a slow burn, but I personally think it'd be the wrong approach.

Huge infrastructure costs to sell Xbox outside of established markets. And with the investment into gamepass and xcloud, I can't see MS wanting to push a lot of hardware. Their game is subs and software now.
There's just not enough market out there to justify to MS to invest into selling more console hardware and to compete tooth and nail with Sony. It's much better that they keep investing into cloud. I just can't see them diluting the power levels to chase a market that is largely Sony dominated - you're just looking at a lot of investment with a ton of loss. It's so much easier getting to them via their phones or tablets or PC. The game to play is to market your console as the most power, best place to play. And sell them on gamepass and xcloud.

The idea of having to build tons of cheaper console units, distribute them, and market it. It sounds really costly and seems backwards of what MS is trying to achieve. Let xcloud and gamepass do the marketing and sell a high powered console.

 

[chris1515]

Well, that was a whole lot of nothing.

No he just said like Jason Schreier told before the two consoles are powerful and not far from each other. He can't give numerical data because he is under NDA and he thinks digitalfoundry or NxGamer will have difficulty to find difference this time. This is something precise for someone under NDA and he said too every leak did not tell the full truth.

 

[Picao84]

No way, Renior is 150mm^2 and it comes with 8 zen 2 cores and only 8CUs for slightly more than 1TF. You'd need at least to be bigger than that for 4TF.

In that case that would mean that the XSX having 56 CUs in 380mm2 is not possible. I was basing my calculations on the info we have about it.

Edit - Renoir still uses Vega, instead of Navi, although I doubt the difference would be that big.

 

[goonergaz]

No he just said like Jason Schreier told before the two consoles are powerful and not far from each other. He can't give numerical data because he is under NDA and he thinks digitalfoundry or NxGamer will have difficulty to find difference this time. This is something precise for someone under NDA and he said too every leak did not tell the full truth.

If nothing else it likely explains why real data is hard to come by...both MS and Sony clamping down big time.

What I will say is there's a lot of smoke around one console performing better than the other but minimal difference (probably XB>PS), and one loads faster than the other but both load fast so minimal difference (likely PS>XB)