Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[Squilliam]

I'd be very surprised if we get TDPs higher than ~125w. Very surprised.

Is that measured pre / post power supply? It makes a lot of difference when you've got effectively fixed power use from RAM, HDD, ODD, various misc board componentry etc.

 

[Entropy]

I know aesthetics play a role. And it is certainly possible to make a beautiful and powerful (and not too loud) machine.

It is?
Well, Microsoft and Sony gave it their best shot this generation and they failed.
I know more people interested in movies than games, but only one would consider a PS3 due to its noise levels, and he returned three (!) before getting one he could live with. Me, I hesitate even at the current iteration and lean towards a standalone BR-player rather than getting a PS3. Noise was a factor that severely hampered the PS3 in its role as a BluRay trojan, something which was one of the two most important tasks it had.

The xBox360 is a non-starter still for anything media related, in my book.

Look, peoples standards are different. Just as I accept that some people just don't give a damn about power draw for instance, you have to accept that there is a lot of people that would never consider a home entertainment device that calls attention to itself. One can argue (pointlessly, as we lack solid data) about the ratios of different groups. We do know that they exist though.
And we know that power draw, size, noise, and cost go together.
From then on, it's guesswork.
My guess is that the last item on the list above, cost, is going to settle the issue.

 

[3dilettante]

Ahh, well I guess there does seem to need some behind the scenes massaging and more lucrative profits. However surely with a spate of capital upgrades, the equipment makers ought to come out on top?

With the 300 mm transition, only a portion of the market could afford the equipment and that equipment's higher throughput meant fewer sales could satisfy the same capacity demands.
The boom times prior to the market downturn were the best-case, and the equipment makers struggled to break even on 300mm.

There would need to be a very large amount of money going their way to repeat the same transition, only the costs are much worse.

Did AMD only just transition to 300mm? Wow, I didn't know that! Anyway with oil money behind them, GF ought to be able to make that transition at the same time if they feel it is viable.

I don't know about "just", but it was later than Intel and others. The 300mm transition for AMD was done at the 65nm node several years ago.

Anyway with greater variability that would mean greater incentive for more smaller chips vs fewer larger chips in terms of getting acceptable yields? So perhaps depending on the size of the chips we might see consoles with a few smaller chips rather than any attempt to amalgamate them into the one or two dice at launch.

Greater variability would push the balance of factors more towards smaller chips with more modest performance targets. This would shift as the process matured.

 

[brain_stew]

If Sony releases a 125W PS4, and MS throws out a 180W Nextbox, the MS console should be significantly more powerful. This ought to be a bigger selling point than "the PS4 is smaller". .

It'll also be more expensive as well and price "ought to be a bigger selling point" than a measly <2x increase in raw performance that is very difficult to demonstrate to your average consumer. We've seen many complain that the 360 is just "an Xbox in HD" despite its leap in raw performance being way more than the 4x resolution leap. Paper specs only count when they can easily and readily demonstrate a tangible advantage to most consumers. The Xbox was more than a simpe 2x leap in raw performance over the PS2, you could rightfully class it as different generation of hardware (double the RAM, standard HDD, a GPU with programmable pixel/vertex shaders) but that didn't really count for much in the end and we're in the realms of much greater diminishing returns now.

I dont dissagree but to be fair that $1 billion mistake by MS could have been eradicated even at the same TDP with better design and manufacturing, and in sonys case the exotic components like bluray were what pushed them over the 399 mark not just the TDP of the console. .

Have you ever taken a look at the cooling system used in launch PS3s? It didn't come cheap.

Microsoft traded lower reliability for a high TDP and Sony traded a higher BOM for a high TDP. Neither are particularly desirable.

 

[brain_stew]

Is that measured pre / post power supply? It makes a lot of difference when you've got effectively fixed power use from RAM, HDD, ODD, various misc board componentry etc.

Ideally I'd like to think (hope) that these boxes will draw less than 100w at the wall but I'm sure there's still some tech fetishist within these companies that will rally against that happening (evening if its better for their divisions long term health). Its difficult and mostly foolish to draw an arbitrary line here but I believe anything more than a 125W TDP (pre power supply) is stepping into the realms of the absurd and that the business suits (i.e. the people that are actually running both Sony and Microsoft's gaming divisions these days) would rightfully step in at that point.

That still leaves room for a ~90w single chip solution. A 2-3 billion transistor chip integrating an expanded CELL, ~20MB of eDRAM L3 cache and a 1-2 billion transistor DX11 GPU should still be possible at 28nm/22nm while operating within that sort of restraint and it should still present a huge leap over the current generation.

 

[Xenus]

Yes but nothing is to say that a TDP of that high needs to have a BOM of 600. If Sony can have a similar TDP and similar or better cooling ten last gen at a BOM of 400. They will do it. They won't artificially limit their TDP they will put something as big and hot in there as they can afford to cool within given perimeters of their design. TDP is a limiting factor cause there is only so much they can cool in a given space with given cost of cooling at given noise level. Not because they care incredibly about the power draw like one would on a handheld or a laptop.

 

[brain_stew]

Yes but nothing is to say that a TDP of that high needs to have a BOM of 600. .

A higher TDP means a more expensive cooling solution (and PSU) which means a higher BOM That is an inescapable link unless you want to sacrifice reliability and pay for it later on like Microsoft did to the tune of more than $1 billion.

Higher TDP chips tend to be more expensive in and of themselves anyway, without taking into account the increased housing/cooling/PSU costs that they bring. There's not a single home or handheld console on the market today that is currently sold for a loss and that's for good reason, the razor blade model just doesn't work anymore. So if you want to sell this machine at or below cost for ~$400 (which Microsoft and Sony must assuredly do) then I'm sorry, but I just don't see where 200w+ TDPs come into it.

There's less guaranteed die shrinks that can be relied upon as well (this has already proven an issue this generation, and the situation is only going to get worse) and that presents major problems for a 2013 console with a 200w+ TDP. Even if you don't believe slim <100w consoles need to be available at launch, you can't seriously argue that they're not incredibly useful later in the lifespan and if you can't rely on egular process shrinks to get you there within a few years then you're going to have to make allowances for that fact earlier on and that means a lower TDP at launch.

 

[Xenus]

Yes it means higher BOM but they have a set BOM they are building for. Let's say it's 400 at launch once a build a machine in that BOM I don't care if the machine draws 50w or 250w as long as the cooling is speced to handle it sufficiently. It's about bang for my buck and if they get 4x the performance out of the 250w and the final BOMs are 350 for the 50w while the while it's 392 for the 250w. I can tell you they are going to go with the 250w system. Now of course these are random but the BOM is the be all end all not the TDP and they will try to get the most bang from their buck on the BOM.

 

[brain_stew]

Not because they care incredibly about the power draw like one would on a handheld or a laptop.

I don't buy this either, maybe the situation is different in the US but energy sapping electronics are becoming a major political issue in Europe. The EU kicked up a major fuss about the power draw of CE goods in standby mode and it received a lot of press. A console released in 2013 that guzzles more than three times as much energy as your average home computer (which is already a <60w laptop) has the potential to create a major shitstorm. Its the sort of press that needs to be avoided like the plague and there's good reason why Apple place so much emphasis on creating power efficient and environmentally friendly goods, it gives them major marketing capital.

Energy is only going to become an increasingly large proportion of a household's expenditure in the near and medium term and this is another point which can be exlpoited in a competitor's marketing. No one likes larger bills and if one console can be shown to be tangibly cheaper to run then that's going to matter. This point has already been used to great effect by the major backers of LCD, concerns about power draw (even if its mostly FUD) of Plasma displays has definitely held back the technology. Its no surprise that newer models are placing just as much emphasis on reducing power draw as they are on increasing picture quality.

 

[TheChefO]

...Not because they care incredibly about the power draw like one would on a handheld or a laptop.

This is something that always impressed me. Designs of powerful laptops that house tech comparable to the best desktop tech of the time. Granted, it is always scaled back somewhat, but generally 80% +/-5% of the premium desktop tech.

This from a housing that is roughly 1 inch thick.

I'd be happy with a similar design (slim dvd type housing) and I think it better fits the aging gamers (25-35) tastes as it fits well next to other similar devices such as dvd players, receivers, etc.

Regarding power draw and costs, as others have said, if the design is affordable (less than $100 loss at launch for cheapest unit) and reliable, the power draw is irrelevant.

BOM $400 is about the most we can hope for the basic unit with higher BOM on higher end SDK's.

 

[brain_stew]

Yes it means higher BOM but they have a set BOM they are building for. Let's say it's 400 at launch once a build a machine in that BOM I don't care if the machine draws 50w or 250w as long as the cooling is speced to handle it sufficiently. It's about bang for my buck and if they get 4x the performance out of the 250w and the final BOMs are 350 for the 50w while the while it's 392 for the 250w. I can tell you they are going to go with the 250w system. Now of course these are random but the BOM is the be all end all not the TDP and they will try to get the most bang from their buck on the BOM.

I understand the point (even if I don't agree with it) but honestly, do you believe an efficient 250w console can be produced for less than $400? High end cooling in the PC space is all about using more metal and more expensive metals, it isn't particularly elegant technology. The best coolers air coolers on the market, are ridiculous contraptions. Where is this revolution in cheap but efficient cooling going to come from? Liquid cooling can deliver more cooling per mm2 but its still prohibitively expensive and usually requires an external radiator and lots of big ass fans to work effectively, not to mention the maintenance issues. Its just not going to work well in a small enclosed box.

 

[brain_stew]

This is something that always impressed me. Designs of powerful laptops that house tech comparable to the best desktop tech of the time. Granted, it is always scaled back somewhat, but generally 80% +/-5% of the premium desktop tech.

This from a housing that is roughly 1 inch thick.
.

Those machines are sold for $2k+ so they can afford to spare no expense when designing their cooling and housing. A cheap $400 box doesn't have this luxury and anyway, high end laptops definitely aren't "80% premium desktop tech" as you claim, try 50-60% at best. The highest end DTRs use dual "mobility 5870s" which are downclocked desktop 5770s, they definitely do not offer 80% of the performance of a 5970 or dual GTX 480s as your figures imply.

 

[Xenus]

High end computers are dissipating 500w or more. The very high end can get up near 1000w. I do think it's possible whether it's desirable from both a performance and sound standpoint is yet to be determined. I'm sure there is a trade off where performance is degraded by the cost of cooling needed and the noise level getting to the point it is annoying. However I don't believe that point is 100w or less I think it's more likely to fall in 150-200w range. The examples were just extreme to make a point but not so extreme you'd get into the argument of power draw being an actual concern like if I were to throw out an 1000w console. Also I doubt the BOM of a 50w console and 250w console would be that close it's probably be closer to a 200w and 250w but extremes point out the point clearer with less shades of gray.

Indeed high end laptops are more like 80% of a mid range $500-$1000 PC and tend to cost 2-4x as much.

 

[brain_stew]

High end computers are dissipating 500w or more. The very high end can get up near 1000w. .

They're also using boxes which are several times larger and being sold for several times more than a console will as well. I fail to see the relevance.

I think you're seriously overestimating the power draw of high end PCs as well. A high end single GPU system isn't ever likely to use much more than 300w and even a dual GPU solution is rarely ever going to pass 500w-600w. Maybe if we're talking about dual socket systems with triple/quad GPU setups then we can approach that 1kw figure, but not before that.

 

[Xenus]

The only relevance was your sentence about high end computers using exotic cooling to cool their systems. It was to show that they have quite a bit more heat to dissipate and not really. I'd call a high end comp one with an i7 and a pretty nice videocard. lets say one that draws 200 w or above. So with an i7 your TDP is already 330w without factoring in any cooling hard drives , dvd or blu ray drives ect. which could push you into the 400w range then you have power supplies inefficiency which could easily put you near 500w at the wall. And the very high end was made for crossfire and sli systems were you could have 2 3 or even 4 such cards. But either way this is a complete tangent as 250w comps can be cooled in a near console sized case with out too much exotic cooling it's just a question of how much heat is too much so that cooling costs start to limit performance possible.

 

[function]

If you look at benchmarks of CPU's under load the figures will probably surprise you.

There's usually a difference between how much heat a system can be required to dissipate under typical load, how much heat it can be required to dissipate at theoretical maximum, and how much heat it can be expected to dissipate while remaining quiet enough to fit within comfortable or desired parameters.

Heat dissipated inside the case and power draw at the meter are not necessarily the same thing (see Xbox 360).

Expensive laptops can use the best, most power efficient parts. MS and Sony won't want to have to throw away 90% of their working parts and have a lifetime of high price, shit yield components in order to chase unrealistic processor TDPs.

MS and Sony won't want to spent more than they have to on cooling. Every penny penny spent on cooling is a penny less spent on processors or controllers or features or a penny less profit in their pockets.

 

[Xenus]

Oh I'm fully aware that in most cases TDP is a worst case scenario. There have been some cases where it isn't but AMD I'm pretty sure uses a program known internally as the thermal virus and SPEC tests to find what to set as the TDP.

 

[function]

Oh I'm fully aware that in most cases TDP is a worst case scenario. There have been some cases where it isn't but AMD I'm pretty sure uses a program known internally as the thermal virus and SPEC tests to find what to set as the TDP.

That's a good point. Reminds me of the GTX 480 ...

 

[eastmen]

Do launch / first year buyers really care about power load ? As long as it can be cooled properly I don't really care how much power my console uses. I don't think i'd mind up to 200w or so

 

[AlphaWolf]

Do launch / first year buyers really care about power load ? As long as it can be cooled properly I don't really care how much power my console uses. I don't think i'd mind up to 200w or so

So as long as they don't use more than the PS3 or the Xbox360 used at launch, you're ok?