We need to know the price point of each but if its:
399 for 10tf PS5
499 for 12tf Xbox series x
The premium could be pretty close to the difference in power.
Current Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [post GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]
- Thread starter Proelite
- Start date
- Status
399 for 10tf PS5
499 for 12tf Xbox series x
The premium could be pretty close to the difference in power.
We need to wait and see how the difference in gpu power affects how games look. Same for the ssd speed differences affecting loading and streaming data and assets. To which extent the audio hardware is freeing up the cpu. How MS is dealing with AVX256 which sony seems to be conservative about allocating any power margins to it.
Sony didn't get a 5.5 to 22GB/s storage against a 2.4 to 6GB/s completely for free. Each part costs something on the BOM.
Frenetic Pony
Veteran
Math time!
APU:
328mm^2 for PS4 at $100 in 2013.
360mm^2 for Xsx, inflation adjusted and accounting for the fact that silicon isn't getting any cheaper we get approx $122
RAM:
$26 for 8gb GDDR6, approx. So each console is $52.
SSD:
$100 apiece each? Harder to quantify.
Optical drive:
Cheap, around $25.
Other (case, controller, fans, etc.)
PS4 (2013) $170
Inflation adjusted $190
Thus, we get for the Xsx, about a $500 BOM (bill of material) and, like last time, they'll probably eat a bit of cost at the beginning to keep it at $500 sale price.
And the PS5 will be about the same price, rumors already put it at $470 BOM, and that seems entirely reasonable. It probably has a smaller APU that yields a bit better. But the truth is, it's just not going to be that much cheaper. Best Sony can hope for is to do the exact same thing MS will probably do, and eat some cost at the beginning by selling the PS5 at $450.
And even with all that multi plats will probably end up looking and playing pretty much the same.
1P games could easily look/be better on the weaker platform, art direction, next gen exclusive, etc.
$100 is a lot, and by the end of this crazy year could be even more to people.
@Frenetic Pony - I also expect them to sell roughly the same price if not the same. Their both hoping the other goes with higher price if they reveal it first, so they don't need to take as big a loss.
Last edited:
So far I don't see anything that would make xsx inherently more expensive, or anything about PS5 making it inherently cheaper.
I'm not sure I believe either can make $400.
MS is hoping ps5 is as close to $500 as possible, as I think they'll match it regardless.
As the higher the price the more space it gives to Lockhart.
If they both end up at $450 it puts more pressure on the pricing and profitability of Lockhart.
I'm not sure I believe either can make $400.
MS is hoping ps5 is as close to $500 as possible, as I think they'll match it regardless.
As the higher the price the more space it gives to Lockhart.
If they both end up at $450 it puts more pressure on the pricing and profitability of Lockhart.
The deleted Tweets, Interview and Discussion about them have been moved to the general baseless thread, as it seems quite impossible to have discussion about items that no longer exist: https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...n-rumors-and-discussions-post-gdc-2020.61645/
I think it depends if PS5 ends up with a much simpler assembly and heatsink, in that case XBSX could have a few additional dollars over PS5:
- Bigger silicon, lower yield.
- More VRMs since the fixed clock needs safety margins.
- Larger heatsink, more material, more copper.
- Vapor chamber instead of heatpipes.
- More complex assembly with two PCBs.
- 10x gddr6 (2x density chips are less than 2x the cost)
- Bigger PSU.
Sony's parts cost above XBSX:
- Custom nand controller instead of off-the-shelf
- 12ch instead of 4ch nand (2x density chips are less than 2x the cost)
- It's using a bit less capacity and a lower speed grade than MS, so this could balance out.
I'm guessing a $45 BOM difference and I can't see anything above $60, nor below $30.
The only way they end up very close would be if Sony made a much bigger vapor chamber, heatsink assembly, and PSU. I find this unlikely based on the recent revelation from DF that 3.5 and 2.23 clocks were chosen to have an equalized thermal density across the chip, it indicates everything is designed to take advantage of a lower cost thermal management and power delivery. It also indicates the 2.23ghz isn't really beyond the knee considering it's the same thermal density as a very reasonably clocked 3.5 zen2.
Size can be a factor in yields but size is more about chips per wafer for economies of scale. For yields, the chip has to hit the frequency and number of cores given the voltage range tolerance. Unlike consumer stuff, a failed core doesn't lead to a lower SKU. So each chip has to perform or get discarded.
Steppings can also happens if you have bad yields upfront thus later chips might be a different stepping due a change in design or manufacturing that leads to better yields but the performance target remains the same.
Ideally though, you should have a good handle of expected yield when you transition from ES (engineering sample) and QS (qualification sample). There you can typically see if it took re-spins to get there.
Steppings can also happens if you have bad yields upfront thus later chips might be a different stepping due a change in design or manufacturing that leads to better yields but the performance target remains the same.
Ideally though, you should have a good handle of expected yield when you transition from ES (engineering sample) and QS (qualification sample). There you can typically see if it took re-spins to get there.
This would really destroy much of the content of Internet forums so I hope this isn't the case
But then could easily be
- High frequency low yield
- high frequency more heat so bigger HSF/cooling
Yes it clocks down but we still don't know just how much heat it needs to deal with.
Frequency effects yields also. Remember that it needs to be able to run at max frequency most of the time.
So that's why I'm saying at the moment on balance I can't see much in it, with what we know. The other stuff like split board design, if Sony goes with a single, does that make cooling everything more complicated?
In regards to ps5 there's a lot of unknowns, how small /blig is the console even?
Either way I still think it will be close enough that I could see Ms eating the difference this time.
anexanhume
Veteran
Why is this a cost negative for PS5? They designed the controller, so they don’t have to pay an intermediary (Phison) per chip like MS does.
You know, I might have boobed (not the first time).
I can't actually find confirmation of the number of shader engines in PS5 and XSX now I'm looking again. Was sure I'd seen it ....
Anyone?
Well If ms is using a controller that is already used in millions of hard drives that will be cheaper than something that is being used in thousand or hundreds of thousands of ps5s at the start.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
On a production chip level, yeah. But Microsoft did not spend years R&D'ing a controller and patenting it. Those are probably not insignificant sunk costs. Hardware design and manufacture is Sony's bread and butter though.
That means it's cheaper for Phison to manufacture, not necessarily cheaper for Microsoft to licence. Microsoft is not paying cost, companies who licence their tech to other companies are not a charity
I could be wrong because it depends on volume, but usually off-the-shelf components have the R&D absorbed already and they have a massive client base.
Regardless, it's 3 times the size of the Phison which MS is using. 12ch is an expensive silicon footprint versus 4ch.
hm... I imagine neither are using clamshell, so it'd be 6x2GB + 4x 1GB against 8x2GB nominally, or rather the cost of 4x1GB vs 2x2GB.
Shader Engine and Shader Units are different things. One Shader Engine consists (in RDNA1 anyway) of 2 Shader Arrays, one Shader Array has several CUs (depends on chip/configuration how many) and other blocks in it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked