Merrill Lynch Update: PS3 BOM Approaches $900
- Thread starter Alpha_Spartan
- Start date
mckmas8808 said:So you actually think that Sony will sell the PS3 (it is a console at the end of the day) for $600+? Why would you ever think such a thing? You would be able to buy 2 Xbox 360s and two games for the same price that you could buy 1 PS3. And you really think Sony would sacifice that?
See this is the main reason why this is great PR for the videogame forums.It's so funny to actually see people fall for it though.
I think its obvious that Sony cant sell a device whose primary purpose is video games for $600. I'm pretty sure hes just pointing out that MS will have a cost/price advantage early on, and well into this gen.
mckmas8808
Legend
Inane_Dork said:
Why would someone lose interest in the PS3 after Sony shows games at E3? This is a dumb report that even you know is incorrect, so why lie to yourself? You know people aren't going lose interest in the PS3 over this super high estimate.
I've only scanned through the previous posts so sorry if I'm repeating some things that have been said (I'm sure some have), but as everyone knows my disdain for analysts, this demanded I lash out in all haste.
Anyway just some failings with the report:
1) This Cell 4x the RSX thing in price. Doesn't make sense. Even if RSX were *just* a G70 shrunk down, and nothing bigger and fancier, it would still be roughly the same size as Cell itself. Not to mention it's produced on 200mm wafers vs 300mm. Not to mention that Cell's been in production over a year and RSX would have just started. Granted I know the process RSX is on is quite mature, but still. That Cell number is utterly whack and I just don't buy it. Now I'd honestly be surprised if RSX were that cheap though as well, so I really have no idea what they're doing over there.
2) They can't add.
3) As was pointed out to me by Crossbar:
They need some new help ASAP.
But to be fair, the crux of their pricing argument though really is the BD drive, and I remember we were involved in that conversation not too long ago where the focus went to the optical pickup unit; something that was 'known' to be very expensive for initial Blu-ray devices. In that sense, it's hard to say how much the drive in PS3 would or would not cost, so maybe Merrill's not far off - but then again who knows when PS3 is launching?
Anyway just some failings with the report:
1) This Cell 4x the RSX thing in price. Doesn't make sense. Even if RSX were *just* a G70 shrunk down, and nothing bigger and fancier, it would still be roughly the same size as Cell itself. Not to mention it's produced on 200mm wafers vs 300mm. Not to mention that Cell's been in production over a year and RSX would have just started. Granted I know the process RSX is on is quite mature, but still. That Cell number is utterly whack and I just don't buy it. Now I'd honestly be surprised if RSX were that cheap though as well, so I really have no idea what they're doing over there.
2) They can't add.
3) As was pointed out to me by Crossbar:
They need some new help ASAP.
But to be fair, the crux of their pricing argument though really is the BD drive, and I remember we were involved in that conversation not too long ago where the focus went to the optical pickup unit; something that was 'known' to be very expensive for initial Blu-ray devices. In that sense, it's hard to say how much the drive in PS3 would or would not cost, so maybe Merrill's not far off - but then again who knows when PS3 is launching?
Last edited by a moderator:
I've already laid out the situation as cleanly as it can be laid out. E3 was not part of it at all. I am not responsible for the rationality of my arguments after foreign objects are inserted.mckmas8808 said:
Yes, I do. I stated that in the post you quoted. So... ?
The cell and blue-ray drive numbers do seem very high when compared with the RSX for example. Might this be because these "manufacturing costs" also take development into account? This would at least explain why cell and BR are considerably higher priced as you would expect them to have had considerably higher R&D costs.
This is such complete utter bullshite. A BR drive isn't going to COST $75 to make, much less cost $75 MORE than a DVDROM drive.expletive said:
Guden Oden said:This is such complete utter bullshite. A BR drive isn't going to COST $75 to make, much less cost $75 MORE than a DVDROM drive.
Wasnt one of the advantages of HD-DVD that it was cheaper than BR to manufacture the drives and media? If thats true, wouldnt it stand to reason that a regular DVD drive is even cheaper than that?
Maybe its not $75 but you have to think a DVD drive will be a significant amount cheaper than BR in 3 years, heck even if tis $50 thats the difference between 249 and 199...
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, it's pretty bad. Some thinking I've seen is that the 70$ price for the GPU is missing a 1 in front of it, coming it at $170. But whatever, too many mistakes.xbdestroya said:
I do have a question for you, though. What is the cost breakdown for this optical unit in the Blu-ray drive? What makes it expensive? I've heard $300+ before, but just don't get it. Is there any reliable information on this?
zidane1strife
Banned
Not sure, as it was a while ago, but iirc, it was only the media and it was only in the caddie era. It should be much closer if not even now, if I recalled correctly.expletive said:
Last time ps2's combo dvd/cd laser unit was said to be much cheaper than the multiple dvd/cd lasers of other players(and fast too, think it was 4x or something like that). Ps3 is likely using the new combo blu-ray/dvd/cd unit that should be much cheaper than alternate solutions.
As for ps3 I'd hope they'd delay till fall worldwide(oct/nov), and up the specs even more, 768MB-1GB maybe a move to 65nm-which you know they're probably working in parallel, to move the chips to, sometime next year at latest-(you can never have enough, and the more outdated the competition looks the better for them).
Sis said:
Well it was Scooby quoting discussion on AVS that brought the issue to light here. I don't have the exact breakdown because that information was absent then as well, but from what I gathered at the time it was optical unit complexity, married to the fact that there was (are) only one or two manufacturers with production lines at present to begin with.
Last edited by a moderator:
As an interesting side-note (not sure if these were mentioned already), Merrill Lynch's estimates sure have gone up since eight months ago. And three months ago.
They expecting Ben Bernanke to bring about some heavy inflation soon or something?
They expecting Ben Bernanke to bring about some heavy inflation soon or something?
Just a second thought about the CPU-GPU question, on the PC usualy CPUs with less transsistores cost more than GPUs for example the 90nm P4D820 at 3 (and more) Ghz and ~230M of transistores and the 110nm of the 7800 with 300M (the full board with 512Mg cost less than some of those CPUs).
