Make educated guess of DurangOrbis die sizes, tdps, and costs based on VGLeaks

The only difference is the IR emitter, eveything else is the same

Cheers

 

Kindof - the sensors are almost certainly "similar enough".

But:
- Kinect1 had internal hardware for processing the raw image into a depth image, along with the audio bits.
- there's the IR emitter.
- the kinect design has to be licensed from primesense.
- the kinect construction is always going to be more complicated.

The first one is interesting, it's possible that the raw processing has been moved onto durango's CPU... (this may gel with the 'raw' IR image being the wrong resolution). Alternatively they may be licensing the newer primesense chip (more powerful and cheaper). [I guess they may have simply put the newer primesense chip inside Durango?]

The bigger point is simply that the PSeyeye is (potentially) a ludicrously simple/cheap design.

 

The rumor floating around about Kinect 2.0 has always been that the onboard processor is far beefier than anything the original Kinect included. That alone should make it significantly more expensive than the PS4 Eye.

 

Kinect 1 had an estimated BOM of $56 in 2010. Even with higher resolution sensors Kinect 2 will be cheaper. It has two sensors instead of three and it doesn't have a tilt motor. Also, if rumours are true, Kinect 2 won't be using Prime Sense.

Wrt. dedicated silicon for processing. You include the cost of a dedicated hardware solution for Kinect 2 but completely discount the cost of data processing for PSeye, which will run on the CPU/GPU. The Sony solution, extracting depth from stereoscopic images, is going to be more involved, .

I expect BOM for K2 to be below $40.

Cheers

 

There's no dollar amount to consider in the PS4's host processing. We're only talking BOM here.

 

It may not affect BOM, but it will come at a cost (CPU/GPU resources). PSeye will be cheaper, but inferior.

Cheers

 

Well, it doesn't seem that Sony plans for it to be the always on appliance that Kinect will be. There will be no processing cost unless a game explicitly requires it (in which case it will still have lots of GPGPU power to spare) versus the Kinect processing (and memory) cost that remains constant.

 

Kinect will need a lot more processing this time. MS is researching and presenting a lot of new features. One being the ability to render your living room in realtime with the use of the gpu. Another using the DMEs and some other logic for body part recognition while its on its way to the gpu or cpu.

 

Kinect 1 was large, had separate pieces, multi-sensors, an on board processor which was never used (this one was completely lack of foresight), a tilt motor, a fan... 3(!) PCBs; one of them quite large



I'd actually expect Kinect 2s BOM to be ~$15-25, maybe even less... if they can subtract all the uselessness, merge the IR array output and input, and make it a low profile unit like how some webcams are today

 

They might reduce cost but the unit size probably won't change much. The microphones need distance between them.

 

One of you is saying Kinect 2 has on-board processing and the other not. You can't have it both ways, it is either part of the BOM or the work is offloaded to the Durango CPU. Also not knowing what is in the Kinect 2 makes it kind of hard to estimate the cost of its components.

 

Actually, you can. Processor on the Kinect to create the depth image from the IR pattern, and processing on console to work out skeleton.

 

A processor on-board is either there or not, you can't ignore it for BOM conversation and add it back when talking about CPU usage.

 

One would think if Sony threw in hardware just to keep the "share" function from eating at the cpu/gpu resources, unless it came free from something they already had planned (GPU/ARM), they would want to do the same for Eye2 if possible.

Although I assume the Eye2 would require much more processing(not sure, if you have the time please enlighten me on differences of the two) it seems even more reason to add something to offload the more resource consuming "pieces" of the processing.

 

The share button (and Gaikai streaming) only makes use of a standard vce unit that is present in all the GCN chips.Maybe also of the downscaler.Is not like they added something out of his world for it.

 

Yes it's pretty clearly the VCE...

 

Master_JO@GAF found this - a contract to build an ASIC for kinect2, which may be the image->depth chip we've been discussing:
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20130307PB200.html

 

Hmm I think a gaffer did measure. I want to say 427mm^2 was his estimate? Something like that.

Edit found it, it was a B3Der, msxyz

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1738459&postcount=3296

=437mm^2

The pic is at an angle though, so I bet there's "slop"

That is a huge SOC though if right, the ESRAM must be freaking enormous then. yikes.

Bonaire=14 CU's=160mm^2.

I dont know how much the CPU is but, GEEZ.

Edit#2. Ahh, but Gubbi had a second opinion on the area

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1738463&postcount=3299

Shrug.

 

Looked at it again


The APU seems to be almost exactly three times as big as the DRAM package. Assuming the DRAM uses a 9x12mm package, the APU is 327mm²

XB1 uses 16 4Gbit DRR3 chips. 4Gbit is currently the highest density. By the time it is the lowest density, I'd expect the XB1 to move to a 128 bit DDR4 memory system with twice the transfer rate.

Cheers