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

[HBRU]

Did you ever do that with previous consoles? Did you look at PS4 and compare it to 680 GTXs and 780 GTXs? Did you consider PS3's ~240 GFLops GPU in relation to the GTX 8800 that launched in the same time-frame? When PS4 launched, November 2013, it had 1.8 TF. In the same month, the 780 Ti launched with 5 TF. PS4 wasn't even half the power of the top end (not even elite end!). If GPUs are hitting 18 TFs end of this year, 9 TFs would be half, which is perfectly in keeping with previous generations AFAICS.

Points to remember.
We have to look at the past to see what's going happen.
Consoles can't be so costly so companies MUST shrank specs to reasonable limits. If MS is at 12 TF and Sony at 9 that MS Console is going be relatively expensiver than Sony's one and that can be a problem for sales... depend on how much more expensive. I think distance in price should be imperatively less than 100 dollars....

 

[AlphaWolf]

Points to remember.
We have to look at the past to see what's going happen.
Consoles can't be so costly so companies MUST shrank specs to reasonable limits. If MS is at 12 TF and Sony at 9 that MS Console is going be relatively expensiver than Sony's one and that can be a problem for sales... depend on how much more expensive. I think distance in price should be imperatively less than 100 dollars....

Assuming all other things are equal. If Sony has invested more into parts (Faster nvme, higher speed ram, controller features) other than compute it's possible they could trail the TF race and have a similar BoM.

 

[goonergaz]

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

Sorry to bring this up again but I feel I needed to just clarify why I have my stance...

Let's break it down based on PS4 which was only $400 and we're expecting XBX to be $500...
CPU/GPU 100 let's say down to 50
DRAM 60 let's say down to 30
PSU 20 will be about the same 20
BluRay 28 let's remove that
HDD 37 Let's call it a wash as it'll need the new tech so 37
Mechanical 35 will likely be the same so 35
Electrical 40 will likely be the same so 40
Controller 15 will likely be the same so 15
Other 10 will likely be the same so 10

Total saving ~100 - the GPU is the only area where I could potentially see more savings as the GPU in XSX could cost around 150, but still you're saving less than 150 in total...do you really think MS will eat the extra 150 that will be required to get a $200 console out? Add to that that moving forward I've been lead to believe the chances of cost cutting is being reduced with each new chipset/shrink...and the fact it's already been stripped to the barest of machines (so it's not like you can release a digital version).

I just think we need to be realistic...I'd love to see this machine at that price, but it's not going to happen.

 

[goonergaz]

Interesting thought (well I thought so lol) for those dissing all these comments regarding the next gen consoles 'being close'...

How many 'insiders' have said otherwise? There's literally no-one saying 'PS5 struggling' or 'one console has clear edge'...well no-one I can think of, but happy to be proven wrong

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Interesting thought (well I thought so lol) for those dissing all these comments regarding the next gen consoles 'being close'...

How many 'insiders' have said otherwise? There's literally no-one saying 'PS5 struggling' or 'one console has clear edge'...well no-one I can think of, but happy to be proven wrong

Do they ever? I don't readily recall any console being criticised. Maybe WiiU, which was a generation behind in tech, not 30-40%. I think a console can be half the GPU power and still be talked of as close quite comfortably. As long as the CPU is comparable, just tone the graphics down a couple of notches and you have effectively the same thing.

As I've mentioned before, human perception is typical exponential. A doubling of light energy is a 10% increase of brightness. 10x the sound energy is sensed as a 'doubling' of loudness. With consoles, we notice a clear difference between a 10x change in power, a generational advance. A 2x difference in power isn't so readily detected (mostly because devs are good at occluding it and don't just throw the same game at the same res with the same features at the slower console. If they did, it'd be obvious in motion!). I think qualitative differences are more significant than raw power. If you had one machine capable of producing next-gen lighting and shadowing versus the other, even with less TFs, it'd appear the better machine and be the 'more powerful'.

 

[Picao84]

Sorry to bring this up again but I feel I needed to just clarify why I have my stance...

Let's break it down based on PS4 which was only $400 and we're expecting XBX to be $500...
CPU/GPU 100 let's say down to 50
DRAM 60 let's say down to 30
PSU 20 will be about the same 20
BluRay 28 let's remove that
HDD 37 Let's call it a wash as it'll need the new tech so 37
Mechanical 35 will likely be the same so 35
Electrical 40 will likely be the same so 40
Controller 15 will likely be the same so 15
Other 10 will likely be the same so 10

Total saving ~100 - the GPU is the only area where I could potentially see more savings as the GPU could cost around 150, but still you're saving less than 150...do you really think MS will eat the extra 150 that will be required to get a $200 console out? Add to that that moving forward I've been lead to believe the chances of cost cutting is being reduced with each new chipset/shrink...and the fact it's already been stripped to the barest of machines (so it's not like you can release a digital version).

I just think we need to be realistic...I'd love to see this machine at that price, but it's not going to happen.

Then you are basically saying that Microsoft are Muppets, because it would not make any sense in the world to offer a 4TFlop console for only 100 less than a 12TFlop one! Which is apparently what they were going to do and this was never refuted! They even presented it as XBox Series, implying more than one. It can only make sense if there is a much larger price difference than that, hence the 199. They might try to recoupe the cost deficit in other ways for example, by bundling it with a mandatory 1 year subscription to game pass. A bit like phone contracts: here we give you this console for 199 if you are on gamepass for 12 months. Given that Lockhart was rumoured to be heavily directed at the Cloud it makes sense. What does not make any sense whatsoever is to have such a gimped lower tier selling for barely less than your flagship.

 

[goonergaz]

Then you are basically saying that Microsoft are Muppets, because it would not make any sense in the world to offer a 4TFlop console for only 100 less than a 12TFlop one! Which is apparently what they were going to do and this was never refuted! They even presented it as XBox Series, implying more than one. It can only make sense if there is a much larger price difference than that, hence the 199. They might try to recoupe the cost deficit in other ways for example, by bundling it with a mandatory 1 year subscription to game pass. A bit like phone contracts: here we give you this console for 199 if you are on gamepass for 12 months. What does not make any sense whatsoever is to have such a gimped lower tier selling for barely less than your flagship.

??

Who's saying it will be $100 less than XSX? The general thought is $200 less @ $300 I believe. Also 4TF I thought was now rumoured to be 6-7TF?

Interesting idea with bundling with ultimate, it's an idea that might work.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Then you are basically saying that Microsoft are Muppets, because it would not make any sense in the world to offer a 4TFlop console for only 100 less than a 12TFlop one!

If you think XBSX is $400, then the 4 TF console would have to be $200 to fit your view and being a viable product. However, $200 for a console is unrealistic. However, if you assume $500 for XBSX, then a 4 TF console could be $200 cheaper as you say at $300, which is a viable price for a new console. I think everyone was assuming that situation with the rumoured specs...

$300 4TF Lockhart
$400 9 TF PS5
$500 12 TF XBSX

 

[Picao84]

??

Who's saying it will be $100 less than XSX? The general thought is $200 less @ $300 I believe. Also 4TF I thought was now rumoured to be 6-7TF?

Interesting idea with bundling with ultimate, it's an idea that might work.

If you go back to my original post I do raise the fact that the new 7TFlops rumour could be a knee jerk reaction due to realising that a 4TFlops would be dead on arrival. Maybe their cloud project is not ready for prime time as they thought it would when they conceived 4TFlop Lockhart and they had to redesign it to be a more traditional console to run titles locally?

 

[Picao84]

If you think XBSX is $400, then the 4 TF console would have to be $200 to fit your view and being a viable product. However, $200 for a console is unrealistic. However, if you assume $500 for XBSX, then a 4 TF console could be $200 cheaper as you say at $300, which is a viable price for a new console. I think everyone was assuming that situation with the rumoured specs...

$300 4TF Lockhart
$400 9 TF PS5
$500 12 TF XBSX

Well, that did not make sense to me from the off because Lockhart would be eaten alive by PS5, as It brings the best value proposition, playing 4K games closer to native for only 100 more? I always saw it as budget console to entice gamers to the Xbox ecosystem. I doubt it would work at the 300 price point.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well, that did not make sense to me from the off because Lockhart would be eaten alive by PS5, as It brings the best value proposition, playing 4K games closer to native for only 100 more?

But that's how commerce works. The more you buy, the better value you get, for lots of products.

There's a minimum base cost to creating a console that can't be reduced. Let's call that $100. On top of that you add RAM and CPU+GPU. $50 of CPU and GPU + $100 fixed-costs gives you an entry level box at $150. $100 of CPU and GPU gives you a box that's only $50 more than the cheap one, but 2x as powerful.

Those who can't afford the higher quality option get the cheapest possible, which is generally a pretty compromised solution. It's not good value, but it's the only value they can afford. However, that's not even the case with this theoretical Lockhart. If 9 TF is for 4K gaming, 4TF would be fine for 1080p which is good enough for many. So, why bother spending $100 more for a 4K capable console on your 1080p display?

 

[Nesh]

If you think XBSX is $400, then the 4 TF console would have to be $200 to fit your view and being a viable product. However, $200 for a console is unrealistic. However, if you assume $500 for XBSX, then a 4 TF console could be $200 cheaper as you say at $300, which is a viable price for a new console. I think everyone was assuming that situation with the rumoured specs...

$300 4TF Lockhart
$400 9 TF PS5
$500 12 TF XBSX

Correct me if I am wring but wasnt lockhart romored to be some kind of streaming/local hybrid console? It might probably not even have a disk drive

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's been rumoured to be many things, including non-existent. Why would a streaming console need 4 TFs? A mobile SOC can do game streaming.

 

[Deleted member 7537]

30 more pages of absolutely nothing. lol.

And we all know that, at the end of all this, we will end up buying an overpriced nvidia card.

 

[Picao84]

But that's how commerce works. The more you buy, the better value you get, for lots of products.

There's a minimum base cost to creating a console that can't be reduced. Let's call that $100. On top of that you add RAM and CPU+GPU. $50 of CPU and GPU + $100 fixed-costs gives you an entry level box at $150. $100 of CPU and GPU gives you a box that's only $50 more than the cheap one, but 2x as powerful.

Those who can't afford the higher quality option get the cheapest possible, which is generally a pretty compromised solution. It's not good value, but it's the only value they can afford. However, that's not even the case with this theoretical Lockhart. If 9 TF is for 4K gaming, 4TF would be fine for 1080p which is good enough for many. So, why bother spending $100 more for a 4K capable console on your 1080p display?

I'm sorry but the difference is staggering for just 100. People who could not afford PS5 or XSX at launch would more likely wait for sales on them than buy Lockart at launch. Especially with Microsoft saying there won't be XSX exclusives until a year after launch. From the point of view of Playstation users why would they get a console that is basically a PS4 Pro at the same price?

 

[Picao84]

It's been rumoured to be many things, including non-existent. Why would a streaming console need 4 TFs? A mobile SOC can do game streaming.

So it can play games that are not available on the cloud as well?

 

[turkey]

Only solution is lockheart was part of the subscription only to that new package they released in the US. 2 years of gamepass ultimate thingy?

 

[Picao84]

Sorry to bring this up again but I feel I needed to just clarify why I have my stance...

Let's break it down based on PS4 which was only $400 and we're expecting XBX to be $500...
CPU/GPU 100 let's say down to 50
DRAM 60 let's say down to 30
PSU 20 will be about the same 20
BluRay 28 let's remove that
HDD 37 Let's call it a wash as it'll need the new tech so 37
Mechanical 35 will likely be the same so 35
Electrical 40 will likely be the same so 40
Controller 15 will likely be the same so 15
Other 10 will likely be the same so 10

Total saving ~100 - the GPU is the only area where I could potentially see more savings as the GPU in XSX could cost around 150, but still you're saving less than 150 in total...do you really think MS will eat the extra 150 that will be required to get a $200 console out? Add to that that moving forward I've been lead to believe the chances of cost cutting is being reduced with each new chipset/shrink...and the fact it's already been stripped to the barest of machines (so it's not like you can release a digital version).

I just think we need to be realistic...I'd love to see this machine at that price, but it's not going to happen.

Additionally, this BOM is using retail prices, not the kind Microsoft / Sony get by ordering millions of each. Your numbers bring the cost of putting the XSX together at more than 400. No way that's correct, as as you said yourself the BOM for PS4 Pro was 188.

 

[Nesh]

It's been rumoured to be many things, including non-existent. Why would a streaming console need 4 TFs? A mobile SOC can do game streaming.

But it's not going to be a 100% streaming console like Stadia. It was rumored to be a hyprid. Something I dont understand

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm sorry but the difference is staggering for just 100. People who could not afford PS5 or XSX at launch would more likely wait for sales on them than buy Lockart at launch. Especially with Microsoft saying there won't be XSX exclusives until a year after launch. From the point of view of Playstation users why would they get a console that is basically a PS4 Pro at the same price?

You can try arguing from the POV of value all you like, but that doesn't change the engineering costs. If Lockhart is going to be $200, that needs to be explained in terms of cost to build, losses taken, and overall business model.

So it can play games that are not available on the cloud as well?

Then it's not a streaming box but a console.