Console revisions discussion - understanding when and why hardware designs change.

[eastmen]

This has always been the Sony way. Even with PS1 there were a bunch of revisions, although many of the changes were internal and didn't alter the look of the console until the PSone. But while Saturn and PS1 were both on the market, off the top of my head, you had 2 versions of Saturn (model 1 and 2) and at least 3 versions of PS1. Launch PS1s had the AV jacks on the back, then they removed them and went with just the multi AV out. And then the Dual Shock system that came bundled with the controller. There were hardware changes inside (IIRC it used a different laser for the disc drive as well), but the firmware also changed with different CD player software that added visualizations. Technically they both had 3 versions of controllers, but that's only because Sega had a different controller for the NA market vs Japan, and then included the Japanese style controller with model 2, and then the 3d controller. Sony had the original controller, the analog controller, and the dual shock controller. There are revisions to the dual shock but I don't know if they came out before Saturn exited the market.

64 hardware never had a hardware revision to my knowledge. But some N64 use silver screws inside where there are copper colored ones in others. I don't think that counts.

Sony just reinvents it's hardware at a faster rate than anyone else.

The ps1 and ps2 needed a lot of revisions. Everyone I knew with a ps1 had to have it it tilted or upside down for the discs to read

 

[BRiT]

The ps1 and ps2 needed a lot of revisions. Everyone I knew with a ps1 had to have it it tilted or upside down for the discs to read

Now that brings back memories. We always had the PS1 tilted against the TV.

 

[eastmen]

Now that brings back memories. We always had the PS1 tilted against the TV.

Yea it seems like the introduction of cd drives caused lots of issues. I remember the sega cd had issues because it was originally under the genesis but the weight of the system above it messed up the drive so they went with a top loader off the the side after it

 

[see colon]

Rapid revisions when design defects were found made sense.

Yes, of course. But they also released the analog controller in August '97 and then the Dual Shock in November of that same year. So maybe they just do it for fun.

 

[vjPiedPiper]

Why not though, versus PS5? And PS in general? Is Sony overspending on making revisions, or is MS missing out on cost-cuttings, and if so, why are they okay with that? Or is the manufacturing pipeline so different for the two of them that for Sony, revisions make sense, but not for MS?

What does Nintendo do?

Sorry I should have been clearer, my theory is that due to the highly specialized design of the XSX, there are so many custom components, that even just doing the soc on a small process, would not enable them to easily make a smaller cooler and other components, thus, it would ONLY allow them to save on the SOC alone, which might not be enough of a savings to warrant the redesign? but it's just a theory, and likely a poor one at that

 

[Inuhanyou]

My opinion? MS just knocked it it of the park with Xbox series s and x design efficiency. They have literally zero reason to even do a refresh till the next generation because their first go essentially hit the mark.

It's like if they released Xbox 360 S in 2005. What point would there be to improve on an already perfect design and efficiency philosophy? The series E model was a pure downgrade in every way which is why it sucked.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Why not though, versus PS5? And PS in general? Is Sony overspending on making revisions, or is MS missing out on cost-cuttings, and if so, why are they okay with that? Or is the manufacturing pipeline so different for the two of them that for Sony, revisions make sense, but not for MS?

If you compare PS5 vs Xbox Series there probably isn't much in it, but if you compare Sony vs Microsoft then Sony will be putting a lot of business to TSMC, easily severals orders of magnitude more than Microsoft.

Remember that TSMC also fab most of Sony's CCD sensors and Sony sell hundreds of millions of those every year, then there are bespoke ICs for TVs, consumer and professional A/V equipment, phones, cameras, medical devices, it's endless. Whilst some devices Sony really only have TSMC as a viable fab partner, for a lot of things that work fine on generations-old lines, they have more choice.

My opinion? MS just knocked it it of the park with Xbox series s and x design efficiency. They have literally zero reason to even do a refresh till the next generation because their first go essentially hit the mark.

There is the cost issue. Sony was selling PS5 hardware at a profit within ten months, Microsoft are were selling Xbox Series at a $100-200 loss per unit as of November. Xbox Series design might be great, but it certainly isn't cost effective for whatever reasons.

 

[iroboto]

If you compare PS5 vs Xbox Series there probably isn't much in it, but if you compare Sony vs Microsoft then Sony will be putting a lot of business to TSMC, easily severals orders of magnitude more than Microsoft.

Remember that TSMC also fab most of Sony's CCD sensors and Sony sell hundreds of millions of those every year, then there are bespoke ICs for TVs, consumer and professional A/V equipment, phones, cameras, medical devices, it's endless. Whilst some devices Sony really only have TSMC as a viable fab partner, for a lot of things that work fine on generations-old lines, they have more choice.

Just wondering in this particular scenario, But when it comes to consoles, doesn’t this all have to go through AMD? Their volume discounts with other silicon sensors and such wouldn’t be bundled in this case.

Edit: let me simplify. Do they pay AMD for each chip used in the console? Or does AMD just provide the chip and MS and Sony have to go manufacture it?

For some reason I thought the prior.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Just wondering in this particular scenario, But when it comes to consoles, doesn’t this all have to go through AMD? Their volume discounts with other silicon sensors and such wouldn’t be bundled in this case.

The AMD - Sony contract would dictate how things work. But would why would Sony - a company with a massive direct contract with TSMC - want or need AMD to be a middle-man? Sony are certainly a bigger customer of TSMC than AMD are. It may be advantageous for other customers of AMD who do not wish to manage a fabrication contract.

 

[iroboto]

The AMD - Sony contract would dictate how things work. But would why would Sony - a company with a massive direct contract with TSMC - want or need AMD to be a middle-man? Sony are certainly a bigger customer of TSMC than AMD are. It may be advantageous for other customers of AMD who do not wish to manage a fabrication contract.

Sorry I edited my question above. So AMD is not a middleman is what you’re saying. Yea
I wasn’t sure. For some reason I thought every chip was paid to AMD.

Pretty raw deal for AMD then. Lol.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you compare PS5 vs Xbox Series there probably isn't much in it, but if you compare Sony vs Microsoft then Sony will be putting a lot of business to TSMC, easily severals orders of magnitude more than Microsoft.

How/why does that favour multiple revisions for Sony?

Edit: let me simplify. Do they pay AMD for each chip used in the console? Or does AMD just provide the chip and MS and Sony have to go manufacture it?

As I understand it, it's a licensing deal. Whereas, if I've got this right, MS had a purchasing deal, not licensing, with nVidia for the OXB which meant nVidia were allowed to keep the price high. As a result of that very expensive set-up, MS moved to AMD and licensing a design to then get produced by whomever they wanted, enabling competitive sourcing.

I would expect the same for NSW, Nintendo buying chips from nVidia. This would account for reduced revisions if parts aren't changing much. Nintendo tend to revise just to fix hardware security faults, I think. It doesn't open a window on why two AMD-PC devices see competely different revision philosophies though.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sorry I edited my question above. So AMD is not a middleman is what you’re saying. Yea
I wasn’t sure. For some reason I thought every chip was paid to AMD. Pretty raw deal for AMD then. Lol.

That would be my estimation. There would be no advantage for Sony - in the normal course of business - to pay AMD to be responsible of fabrication, other AMD's technical input as chip designer to work with TSMC to ensure yields were good. It's not a raw deal for AMD, as a company you need to be agile and provide products on the terms your customers want them. Most of AMD's customers want finished chips for graphics cards so AMD managing fabrication probably works for most of AMD's customer base.

If Sony and AMD do have a contract which allows Sony to leverage its massive contract with TSMC then they actually probably worked out well for AMD because the other contract scenario is where Sony contract AMD to supply 20m chips per annum for the first two years, but then the semiconductor capacity shortage strikes and AMD can't supply Sony and now have to pay penalties. But if Sony are managing that with TSMC, that that's not AMD's problem.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

How/why does that favour multiple revisions for Sony?

Sony will be one of TSMC's volume line customers so the cost structure will be different to average customers with less complex requirements, who may only want one or two lines/processes. Sony need dozens and their contract will afford some flexibility on setup changes because of this. Normally TSMC would charge for that because setup can take a while and you're not being paid while there is no output. That combined with whatever volume discount they're negotiated will mean it's much less costly for Sony to hop their 7nm APU onto a 6nm process, and probably use that old 7nm process for something else.

This kind of flexibility will apply throughout other parts of Sony's supply chain. They will be a massive customer to the organisations to produce chassis, PSUs, PCBs, I/O ports and so on. Sony aren't going to have a contract for USB ports for PS5, Sony will have a massive contract for USB ports covering multiple products and the same for other components like NAND that get used in products, and even things like HDMI cables.

Volume procurement really pays dividends.

 

[iroboto]

Sony will be one of TSMC's volume line customers so the cost structure will be different to average customers with less complex requirements, who may only want one or two lines/processes. Sony need dozens and their contract will afford some flexibility on setup changes because of this. Normally TSMC would charge for that because setup can take a while and you're not being paid while there is no output. That combined with whatever volume discount they're negotiated will mean it's much less costly for Sony to hop their 7nm APU onto a 6nm process, and probably use that old 7nm process for something else.

This kind of flexibility will apply throughout other parts of Sony's supply chain. They will be a massive customer to the organisations to produce chassis, PSUs, PCBs, I/O ports and so on. Sony aren't going to have a contract for USB ports for PS5, Sony will have a massive contract for USB ports covering multiple products and the same for other components like NAND that get used in products, and even things like HDMI cables.

Volume procurement really pays dividends.

As a whole this makes sense, but does it really work that way at the fabs? You have limited 7nm and 6nm fabrication, but you could have tons of supply for 16nm, 20nm, etc and beyond. There is a supply and demand aspect here with respect to the most latest nodes, would tsmc really provide a discount on these nodes when theses nodes are highest in demand?

I'm actually thinking it's not a volume discount which is why Sony revises. Sony revises the most, because they actually have a hardware group that is constantly revising their chips. MS is not a hardware company, they don't make hardware, so any revisions have to be done through AMD, and Nintendo doesn't have a hardware group either. So to me, what I see here is that, constant revision is just something Sony does because they have that type of labour in house working on all of their silicon projects, MS and Nintendo don't, so the only time they want to alter hardware is when something is dramatically wrong.

I have my doubts these volume discounts are netting any gains here on the 'latest' nodes at least.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

As a whole this makes sense, but does it really work that way at the fabs? You have limited 7nm and 6nm fabrication, but you could have tons of supply for 16nm, 20nm, etc and beyond. There is a supply and demand aspect here with respect to the most latest nodes, would tsmc really provide a discount on these nodes when theses nodes are highest in demand?

TSMC don't do discounts on high demand processes, on the fab side it means companies reserving multiple lines have more freedom to chop and change needs over lines. Sony would have reserved 6nm line space years ago, and whether or not that was envisaged for PS5 (or other products), once those lines coming online was on the horizon, that opened up an opportunity for Sony to migrate PS5s APU to 6nm, and use 7nm for something else. Not all products really need smaller nodes but Sony make a lot of mobile equipment where performance and energy efficiency are useful.

The volume discount point was for other commodity components and parts.