Yeah that’s why its good to read/view the whole thing, to get things in context.
Estimate a BOM delta for PS5 and XBSX
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- forty-two
Yeah that’s why its good to read/view the whole thing, to get things in context.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
This is not how semiconductor industry works at all.
There is constant expansion of semiconductor manufacture and consistent changes to fabrication techniques to meet evolving needs. Fabs are hugely expensive so for the operator, knowing today that a big customer will need x times capacity at y node on a monthly/annual basis lets you cost manage where to invest your fab capacity.Fabs plans unto a decade ahead; last year year TSMC were talking about their needs in 2030.
I've booked volume RAM orders for the next 5-10 years, you can get much better pricing. I don't know it works for anybody else but you generally begin with your minimum/maximum needs, which will be wide for a consumer product because you can't accurately predict popularity/sales/demand over the next 5+ years, then within that range there will be spectrum of pricing. There is usually a sweet-spot in the middle where it is cheapest, buying more and more doesn't always mean cheaper because you may get to a point where it's just too much for the supplier to handle comfortably without changing things up - and that costs, which is passed on to you (the customer).
From my aerospace days, it's much harder to keep a processor stable than memory - remembering that from a semiconductor angle, an SSD is merely very slow nonvolatile RAM. It's just we're more used to thinking heat and active in regards to processing semiconductors.
Last edited by a moderator:
In the same way we have other bandwidth figures like RAM speed, which aren't guaranteed minimums but maximums.
PS4's RAM bandwidth is 176 GB/s as listed in the official press release, dropping as low as 110 GB/s in real terms as talked about to devs in a technical discussion.
There's a difference in interpretation here and there's no right way to determine the real intention.
- Interpretation 1, the spec wanted 5 GB/s a minimum at all times. The final solution attains 5.5 GB/s at all times.
- Interpretation 2, the spec wanted an average transfer rate of at least 5 GB/s, more if that's possible. The final solution attain a 5.5 GB/s average.
* I haven't watched it through again. There may be more clues in Cerny's choice of words. I'm just pointing out that single reference points aren't enough because there isn't a clear, cohesive (developer targeted) message such that can pick any part of that message and get the same clear meaning.
Last edited:
I was referencing iroboto post where he took the at least 5GB/s as confirmation end then using the 5.5GB/s that it isn't.
Could just be the way I read his posts.
I wasn't saying that it was the minimum speed.
I don't think the minimum will be an issue while reading data. I can't find any resources regarding power usage or fluctuations regarding read speed.
The 5 GB was labelled as 'at least', the 5.5 wasn't.
In a quick parsing of the info, without straining to build a mental model, that makes it look like the guaranteed baseline part isn't included in the revised figure. Then disco_ points out the context and fills in that mental model a little more (but still without straining - we're just here for fun).
That's the meaningful figure for a discussion of game performance, but the current topic here is cost and cooling. For that, software transfer speed doesn't matter (a 1 GB/s flash with uber compression or a raw 8 GB/s transfer speed attains the same performance), but hardware type to determine if it runs hot and if it needs cooling and if that adds to the BOM cost. Are we sourcing and operating NAND with a base, fixed transfer speed of 5.5 GB/s, or is it a more flexible solution? Does that even affect the cooling requirements?
NAND chips are designed to hold its bits powered off. RAM loses all information once power is done. By design they are completely different; the transistors on RAM only need to hold a charge. Flash need to work between two transistors and an oxide layer to determine its bit value.
the controller does get hot; I believe it’s because the queue depth of nvme is 64000 commands long. Whereas SSD is only 256 or something and SATA is like 32 commands. So the controller has a lot more work because it needs to manage a massive queue depth, whereas the other 2 once full the CPU must sit idle and keep retrying until it’s command enters the queue. My basic understanding at least.
WRT the earlier topic; I just assume that whenever numbers on shown it’s will always be the best case theoretical which is standard practice. So when they went from at least 5 to 5.5 the context for me was discussing the aim for best case theoretical.
The word “Guaranteed” for me only is around thermal throttling”. And in this case I’m looking for clues on what developers can use for in game usage, what can developers really rely on when the system is strained under poor environmental conditions.
Guaranteed should not be taken as “throw any type of worst condition read/write test with the worst block size and it’ll still be X number”.
the reason it’s important is because we know the intention is to have both working towards the supporting the graphics sub-systems. And it can be strenuous and the consoles need to last a life time. If the internal storage dies; or the external connectors fail to work people will RMA.
where PS5 made things more complicated is to certify 3P drives for external storage. If developers are relying on say 75MB/cycle storage available and they are pushing the drive, and sudden thermals throttling comes in and it’s reduced performance by 50% and its only getting 35 MB/cycle suddenly you’re going to run into potential problems.
So I’m curious to see how Sony is handling this. The easiest answer is to ensure it will never throttle by keeping it extremely cool. The only other answer to to guarantee a lower number for developers when it comes to bandwidth; such that if there is a throttle it’s not going to affect gameplay.
Extremely cool, you'd need an exotic cooling solution mostly found i PC's, on water or something like that, with gobs of airflow possible, mostly requires expensive fans if things need to be respectable in dB levels. With the GPU running 2.23ghz, fast memory, the SSD, with in mind they couldn't keep 2 and 3ghz under control, you'd think they really have an advanced cooling system. We need to keep form factor/APU in consideration also. A high airflow pc case with discrete components is alot easier to cool down.
People seems to think Sony engineer are a bunch of idiot not knowing a SSD can throttle but if they need to detail every little details the video would have been 3 hours.
The teardown will be very interesting when people will understand Sony engineer are not a bunch of idiot not knowing what they are doing and probably smarter than B3D forumer or not more idiot than MS hardware engineer. They will understand it is part of the BOM.
Last edited:
I think the BOM is within $20 of each other.
Main difference is bigger GPU on XSX and faster SSD on PS5.
The APU on XSX would be around 25% bigger due to the extra Cus. The PS4s APU cost was approx $100, at launch.
I would expect the PS5 APU to be around $120.00 at launch. So if the XSX APU is around 25% bigger then it's going to be around $25-$30 more.
With the PS5s clocks going so high on the GPU, the yields will be a bit lower on the PS5 than if the chip was only clocked at 2.0ghz.
Sonys SSD is going to cost more than XSXs, and would have to be pretty similar to the gap between the APUs.
I dont expect Sony to come out with a tower form factor like the XSX did, Sony takes design a lot more seriously, and I expect a PS4 type design that will need a pretty smart and expensive cooling system. One would expect the PS5 APU to put off more heat than the XSX, and in a smaller chip which increases the cooling requirements even more.
So all in all, they are gonna be same ball park, and I expect them to both be $499.00.
Honestly, Sony doesn't need to be cheaper than XSX to hit the ground running. They just dont want to be more expensive.
Main difference is bigger GPU on XSX and faster SSD on PS5.
The APU on XSX would be around 25% bigger due to the extra Cus. The PS4s APU cost was approx $100, at launch.
I would expect the PS5 APU to be around $120.00 at launch. So if the XSX APU is around 25% bigger then it's going to be around $25-$30 more.
With the PS5s clocks going so high on the GPU, the yields will be a bit lower on the PS5 than if the chip was only clocked at 2.0ghz.
Sonys SSD is going to cost more than XSXs, and would have to be pretty similar to the gap between the APUs.
I dont expect Sony to come out with a tower form factor like the XSX did, Sony takes design a lot more seriously, and I expect a PS4 type design that will need a pretty smart and expensive cooling system. One would expect the PS5 APU to put off more heat than the XSX, and in a smaller chip which increases the cooling requirements even more.
So all in all, they are gonna be same ball park, and I expect them to both be $499.00.
Honestly, Sony doesn't need to be cheaper than XSX to hit the ground running. They just dont want to be more expensive.
It has nothing to do with claims of Sony idiocy. Stop being so defensive. Questions are being asked to obtain data needed to narrow down the accuracy of any BOM predictions - that's it. And no-one saying they should have expressed every little detail. They didn't create that presentation for the purposes of allowing B3D to create an accurate BOM. We just have to work with the data we've got, which means trying to make sense of it.
Last edited:
No one here has stated either of that? The engineers behind the playstation team are certainly not idiots, neither are the team behind the xbox hardware team. They just made different claims, one went with sustained/minimum rates, one with typical. If anything blame the PR teams, but neither they are 'idiots' they just want to hype their products.
You sure? The XSX's drive is 1TB, PS5's 825gb. I think for the SSD drive they are rather close.
How can a design not-be serious? It's a departure from traditional console design, but their still serious about it
Supposedly, the box can be laid horizontally? If so, how will that affect cooling?They don't need to be cheaper, but it for sure would benefit either to be cheaper, fast market adoption and all.
It would be interesting to have a poll to guess BOM, retail price of cheapest SKU and how many units will be sold by end of 2021. Maybe also guess how many current gen consoles will be sold. My bet would be the bom and retail price is pretty high, won't sell that many units due to high price/limited availability and previous gen will sell tons as casuals want the cheap hw, not the expensive one.
Cerny did say almost instantaneously (or words to that effect).
How do? Sony targeted a min 5 but managed to exceed that to 5.5. As ever, let’s assume Sony can’t deliver based on?
Probably a bit harsh, but yeah - sometimes it’s like ‘how can Sony know something we don’t’.
Except every step of the way on PS5 we have countless ‘I can’t see how Sony can do it’ comments, firstly everyone downplayed the variable clock and now the SSD (although that was originally downplayed back during the Wired reveal.
What I want to know is, why aren’t people pulling apart the MS velocity engine claims that devs has instant access to 100gb of data? That’s not misleading at all!
The controller is the difference between the two. To have a controller that is twice the speed of the XSXs is going to come at a price. A PC SSD anywhere near the PS5s speed is what, $300.-$400 alone?You sure? The XSX's drive is 1TB, PS5's 825gb. I think for the SSD drive they are rather close.
How can a design not-be serious? It's a departure from traditional console design, but their still serious about it
They don't need to be cheaper, but it for sure would benefit either to be cheaper, fast market adoption and all.
By serious I mean aesthetically pleasing, stylish. MS has gone full function over form, while I would expect Sony to go more traditional console form.
Look at their new controller, its all about style. Even as an Xbox player, I think the PS5 is going to look alot "hotter" than the XSX.
So, the reason MS went all tower on us was ease of cooling. If as I expect, Sony goes similar to the PS4, it will need a more unique solution.
Nearly 200gb of extra nand flash is not just nothing either. In total, i don't think their SSD solutions will be that far off. We don't have the exact details either of what rated controller MS is using, the theoretical max transfer rate of their controller might be higher then the claimed one.
In the end it's all personal tastes. I do like MS departing from the traditional console designs we have had for ages, it enabled them to pack more power/cooling into the console landscape. It's a tower form, but smaller then almost any SFF pc build i have seen, with regards to the kind of hardware that's in there.
In a traditional console form/design, it won't only look hotter. Don't be surprised if also Sony is going with something more exotic then before to allow for better cooling of the components in there.
Personally i don't really care so much how they look, its how they perform and how audible they are that go way before that
They have their own solution leading to an increased BOM for sure like MS. We will have soon a teardown. Sony will probably present more information about PS5 before 13th of May financial result or 19th May strategic meeting with investors and shareholders because they need to give guidance for the next fiscal year 13th May and give a strategy for the next three fiscal years 19th May and this will be public information.
