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

[KirkSi]

Yes they seemed/seem to aim for the same BOM as PS4, price spikes, SSD/NAND and DRAM prices up that somewhat.

MS will have the same problems with the XSX though. Their dye is supposed to be considerably bigger and they're using NAND and GDDR6 as well (don't know if XSX also has DDR4). The XSX BOM could be well over $500. I had thought Sony would go for $399 and MS $499. The BOM I take it just accounts for the cost of the parts and manufacture of the console. Storage, shipping, marketing etc. will be on top of that? If it were $450 for the PS5 all in then I could see them maybe selling at $399 and taking the loss in the short term to maintain their market position.

When they took the massive hardware losses they did on the PS3 they weren't charging for PS+ and there was no PS Now subscription. In the here and now they make money in more ways than from hardware and games sales. Subscription services may allow them to eat the $50 loss on hardware (until savings come in on the components over time). Where MS will launch at is another thing entirely though. They could launch at $499 and have to take some losses as well. If MS could get within $50 of the PS5 and the TFs do line up at 9 vs 12 then I think that would be a good result for MS. If the price delta is $100 then the PS5 may have the performance/price sweet spot.

 

[AbsoluteBeginner]

Yes they seemed/seem to aim for the same BOM as PS4, price spikes, SSD/NAND and DRAM prices up that somewhat.

No, I think they aimed for higher BOM anyway, but still aimed to sell it for $399. Price spike issue may have put them in no mans land where they have too big of a loss for $399, but do not give price/perf ratio good enough to justify $499.

 

[goonergaz]

No, I think they aimed for higher BOM anyway, but still aimed to sell it for $399. Price spike issue may have put them in no mans land where they have too big of a loss for $399, but do not give price/perf ratio good enough to justify $499.

So release at 450!?

 

[AbsoluteBeginner]

MS will have the same problems with the XSX though. Their dye is supposed to be considerably bigger and they're using NAND and GDDR6 as well (don't know if XSX also has DDR4). The XSX BOM could be well over $500. I had thought Sony would go for $399 and MS $499. The BOM I take it just accounts for the cost of the parts and manufacture of the console. Storage, shipping, marketing etc. will be on top of that? If it were $450 for the PS5 all in then I could see them maybe selling at $399 and taking the loss in the short term to maintain their market position.

When they took the massive hardware losses they did on the PS3 they weren't charging for PS+ and there was no PS Now subscription. In the here and now they make money in more ways than from hardware and games sales. Subscription services may allow them to eat the $50 loss on hardware (until savings come in on the components over time). Where MS will launch at is another thing entirely though. They could launch at $499 and have to take some losses as well. If MS could get within $50 of the PS5 and the TFs do line up at 9 vs 12 then I think that would be a good result for MS. If the price delta is $100 then the PS5 may have the performance/price sweet spot.

Maybe not. If Sony went a bit more agressive with BOM, they would be more sensitive to any component price increase.

To illustrate :

Sony

BOM - $430 > $450
Price - $399

MS

BOM - $470 > $490
Price - $499

In both cases, both would be losing money on each console sold, but Sony would feel it more duo to already having BOM that is higher then selling price of a console. Just a theory of course, but point is, price hike doesn't have to result in same issues for MS as it does for Sony.

So release at 450!?

Yea, thats one way. But then, if there is ~3TF difference between the two, many may say $50 is too small of a difference in price for power difference.

With $399 dollar console, all else bar TF being the same, $100 looks like a very good deal (which it would be, because Sony would be giving more for less).

 

[chris1515]

No, I think they aimed for higher BOM anyway, but still aimed to sell it for $399. Price spike issue may have put them in no mans land where they have too big of a loss for $399, but do not give price/perf ratio good enough to justify $499.

I don't know why people are doing like the Bloomberg article is the truth. An article where we learn cooling PS4 and PS4 Pro solution with copper cost less than 1 dollars. I need to say to people stealing copper, stop it.

 

[BRiT]

I don't know why people are doing like the Bloomberg article is the truth. An article where we learn cooling PS4 and PS4 Pro solution with copper cost less than 1 dollars. I need to say to people stealing copper, stop it.

So dont think the BOM is around $450 even when ZHugeEx thinks it's in that general range?

 

[KirkSi]

I don't know why people are doing like the Bloomberg article is the truth. An article where we learn cooling PS4 and PS4 Pro solution with copper cost less than 1 dollars. I need to say to people stealing copper, stop it.

If you read @Shifty Geezer's rules for discussing rumours (post #6897) we're currently on point number 4. Discussing the implications of the rumour assuming it's correct. Doesn't mean it is correct, there are definitely some weird things in the article regarding the cooling costs but the overall BOM may still be correct and assuming it is, this is the discussion around where they can each launch at. We're probably wrong but it's something to do until some better information comes along

 

[disco_]

So dont think the BOM is around $450 even when ZHugeEx thinks it's in that general range?

Wouldn't anyone who thinks ps5 is a $500 console agree that a $450 bom seems plausible after knowing xsx is more powerful with a $460-$520 bom?

If you read @Shifty Geezer's rules for discussing rumours (post #6897) we're currently on point number 4. Discussing the implications of the rumour assuming it's correct. Doesn't mean it is correct, there are definitely some weird things in the article regarding the cooling costs but the overall BOM may still be correct and assuming it is, this is the discussion around where they can each launch at. We're probably wrong but it's something to do until some better information comes along

I think everything in the article is accounted for and traced back to the source except the BOM and cooling.

With the BOM you could put on your spinfoil hat and simply say "zhuge told us xsx bom is 460-520 so a guess slightly below that for ps5 is a safe bet.
With cooling, everyone hates jet engines, right?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't know why people are doing like the Bloomberg article is the truth.

Because they're entitled to. This is a thread for discussing rumours. If it turns out they're wrong, the article wasn't true, and all their theorising was all for nought...so what? As long as they had fun discussing it.

It doesn't matter. Nothing in this thread matters. If a PasteBin appears stating the PS5 case is made of Gorgonzola and people feel the need to discuss better cheese alternatives and the impact of use of dairy products in a console and perhaps the source got it wrong and it's a vegetarian cheese substitute being made out of Lima beans and then discussing whether the Lima bean industry can support 100 million console cases or whether Lima beans make a smart choice for a cheese substitute games console, it's all good here. As long as these crazy theories don't spill out into technical, grounded discussions, there is no cause for complaint for people conversing them.

 

[MrFox]

Gorgonzola is so overrated. Make it with a Stilton or nothing.

 

[AlNom]

STEAMPUNK PS5. Instead of sounding like a space shuttle when it gets going, it will whistle like train from the 19th century.

Order reinstated.

You know what grinds my gears...


...A Steam powered console.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

By major change do you mean adding more CUs or activating more CUs? I doubt the former because that would mean they wasted millions of R&D on a 36 CU chip and tested it for no reason, however if they activated 12 or more CUs for full next gen chip testing then three more steppings would make sense to test various clock speed. Somebody call Sherlock Holmes.

I think common sense says we should expect only a single SoC was developed, so having a wider GPU should mean that 12 CUs (or whatever the number) were activated.

However, console makers developing more than one solution in parallel until pretty late in the game isn't unheard of.
The Dreamcast had a PowerVR and a 3dfx model being developed in parallel until pretty late. In fact, Sega only pulled the plug on 3dfx some 15 months before the Dreamcast release. That's the time distance between the github gospel and the PS5's release BTW.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's presumably a lot easy to have a couple different options when using discrete parts, especially 'off the shelf'. A custom SOC is an expensive investment to prototype and it'd be a major investment to operate two solutions with a view to dropping one. That said, now Sony are flush with money thanks to network services, perhaps they were willing to prototype and evaluate two options? That leads to two questions:

1) How much really would it cost to evaluate a discrete SOC only to ditch it? What's the sunk cost there?
2) Why wouldn't the second option appear in the leaks? Wasn't started until later is running six months behind the 9.2 TF option?

 

[AlNom]

By major change do you mean adding more CUs or activating more CUs? I doubt the former because that would mean they wasted millions of R&D on a 36 CU chip and tested it for no reason, however if they activated 12 or more CUs for full next gen chip testing then three more steppings would make sense to test various clock speed. Somebody call Sherlock Holmes.

The Github leak seemed a bit like results from a software simulator, but I don't recall.

It's presumably a lot easy to have a couple different options when using discrete parts, especially 'off the shelf'. A custom SOC is an expensive investment to prototype and it'd be a major investment to operate two solutions with a view to dropping one. That said, now Sony are flush with money thanks to network services, perhaps they were willing to prototype and evaluate two options? That leads to two questions:

1) How much really would it cost to evaluate a discrete SOC only to ditch it? What's the sunk cost there?
2) Why wouldn't the second option appear in the leaks? Wasn't started until later is running six months behind the 9.2 TF option?

There are likely to be cycle-accurate simulations they can run before needing to fab engineering samples, which may be more about evaluating achievable clocks/TDP/yields vs performance results, if that makes sense.

 

[ultragpu]

Look at it guys, so instead of giving us a PS Meeting that'll blow PS5 jizz all over our faces, they're celebrating exclusive dynamic themes and avatars...Sony love us after all! Right??

https://twitter.com/x/status/1229753501846265857

 

[iroboto]

so instead of giving us a PS Meeting that'll blow PS5 jizz all over our faces

Perhaps the player celebration is preferable to having jizz on our faces.

 

[RDGoodla]

To illustrate :

Sony

BOM - $430 > $450
Price - $399


MS

BOM - $470 > $490
Price - $499

In both cases, both would be losing money on each console sold, but Sony would feel it more duo to already having BOM that is higher then selling price of a console. Just a theory of course, but point is, price hike doesn't have to result in same issues for MS as it does for Sony.

Um???

$20 is not very much.

Just cut 250GB NAND (from 1TB to 750GB) and Sony may save $20 BOM. It won't be a huge problem as long as the storage is expandable.

Or they can release an all-digital PS5 without Bluray Drive which will also save $20~30 BOM.



And I have to say that the price hike has the same marginal cost for both Sony and Microsoft if the companies maintain the original retail price.
That is, if Sony loses $20 more per unit then Ms also loses $20 more (maybe worse if Ms uses some faster RAM around 650GB/s).

 

[RDGoodla]

So dont think the BOM is around $450 even when ZHugeEx thinks it's in that general range?

I doubt analysts will know the actual deal between these electronic manufacturers.

Before Sony announced 8GB GDDR5 RAM for PS4 none of them thought 8GB was possible. Actually analysts may know wholesale price.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

1) How much really would it cost to evaluate a discrete SOC only to ditch it? What's the sunk cost there?

Is there any reason why the github leak's devkit couldn't just be using a Navi 10 chip with 2 WGPs disabled, soldered on the motherboard?
After all, there is no RT being mentioned anywhere and bandwidth is still 256bit.

2) Why wouldn't the second option appear in the leaks? Wasn't started until later is running six months behind the 9.2 TF option?

For the same reason there weren't any Navi 2x chips mentioned in the sheets?
If both consoles are being released at around the same time, why is it only Oberon/Ariel getting all those tests done, and Arden only gets a feature checklist? And where is Lockhart?

Like many other religious books, the github gospel doesn't show the answers to everything. At least not for all GPUs and APUs being released in 2020.

 

[London Geezer]

You know what grinds my gears...


...A Steam powered console.

Carbon neutral. It’s the future.