Middle Generation Console Upgrade Discussion [Scorpio, 4Pro]

[Deleted member 11852]

Ps4 /xbox one have a 256bit bus and they are now selling for $250. I am not sure the 384bit bus will be a huge expense and will be coming down the pipe a year from now. I also don't agree that Zen will be a huge price jump either if they include it.

Going wider is always the last resort to clocking faster for throughput and it has cost implications on the whole system unless you're using some weird design like PS2's 2,560-bit bus where Sony found a cost/benefit to going wide but slow. The more lanes you have the more scope you have for on-chip and off-chop crosstalk so you have to use fundamentally better (more expensive) materials and processes throughout, including the PCB.

Remember One and PS4 were based around relatively cheap technology at launch. Conservative 1.6 and 1.75 Ghz Jaguar cores when TSMC’s 28nm process was capable of delivering 2 Ghz chips.. Pro is similarly conservative. Scorpio is not.

 

[function]

GDDR5X at a very modest (for GDDR5X) 10 gHz would deliver 320 GB/s on a 256 bit bus, and indeed this was nvidias preference for the 1080 so 384 bit certainly isn't MS's only option ... though it may well be the cheapest and easiest to engineer with AMD.

Once you go over 8GB of GDDR5 - which Scorpio really needs to anyway - moving to a 384-bit bus is likely the cheapest option. Cheaper than 16 GB clamshell on a 256-bit bus ... and that wouldn't deliver remotely enough BW unless you switched to GDDR5X which would bump the price up further still.

Given the need for > 8GB fast memory and > 300 GB/s, Scorpios most likely arrangement is actually the most conservative. Which makes sense, actually.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Once you go over 8GB of GDDR5 - which Scorpio really needs to anyway - moving to a 384-bit bus is likely the cheapest option. Cheaper than 16 GB clamshell on a 256-bit bus ... and that wouldn't deliver remotely enough BW unless you switched to GDDR5X which would bump the price up further still.

Could be but the the least expensive option from a bunch of expensive options is not the same thing as cheap. I don't think Scorpio will be as expensive as some people fear.

 

[mpg1]

Didn't Albert Penello already let slip that it will have 384-bit bus...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Didn't Albert Penello already let slip that it will have 384-bit bus...

Pennello was misquoted (by Eurogamer) as saying "384Gb/s" but actually said "320Gb/s" and that bandwidth nicely matches a 384-bit bus with 12Gb GDDR5. I don't recall if Microsoft have confirmed specifics.

 

[mpg1]

Pennello was misquoted (by Eurogamer) as saying "384Gb/s" but actually said "320Gb/s" and that bandwidth nicely matches a 384-bit bus with 12Gb GDDR5. I don't recall if Microsoft have confirmed specifics.

Yeah but that counts as a very strong 'let slip' that it will be using 384-bit bus in my opinion..

 

[mrcorbo]

Pennello was misquoted (by Eurogamer) as saying "384Gb/s" but actually said "320Gb/s" and that bandwidth nicely matches a 384-bit bus with 12Gb GDDR5. I don't recall if Microsoft have confirmed specifics.

He wasn't misquoted, it was his misstatement. It seems likely that he conflated 384-bit and 320Gb/s and this is why people feel he "let it slip" that Scorpio has a 384-bit bus. This and the 12 memory memory chips on the concept render don't confirm anything, but I'm comfortable making the assumption of a 12GB, 384-bit, GDDR5 spec to reach the 320Gb/s confirmed spec until something contradicts it.

Also, based on Phil Spencer's characterization of Scorpio being a premium option that will be priced above the existing Xbox One S product line and that this line tops out at $399, I'm guessing at a $499 price point at launch.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

He wasn't misquoted, it was his misstatement. It seems likely that he conflated 384-bit and 320Gb/s and this is why people feel he "let it slip" that Scorpio has a 384-bit bus.

I think you're splitting hairs. Eurogamer admitted they misquoted his mis-statement. Honour was restored. I can't see any reason why Microsoft would want to back peddle or not be transparent about the bus width, it's arguably less important than the throughput and neither indicate latency.

 

[Pixel]

People are assuming a 399 or 449 price around the same price as as PS4 Pro at launch. I can't see silicon prices dropping to the extent they can deliver what is likely roughly 50% more alu, tmu, rops, memory interface for just $50 more. With even greater improvements to the cpu than what pro provides. A little bit more spent on cooling, power/vrm components, psu. And maybe $20 more on memory.

 

[Pixel]

I think you're splitting hairs. Eurogamer admitted they misquoted his mis-statement. Honour was restored. I can't see any reason why Microsoft would want to back peddle or not be transparent about the bus width, it's arguably less important than the throughput and neither indicate latency.

It was a misstatement on Penello's part. Not a misquote by Eurogamer. Its not the 1st time he's made a mistake about specs. He's in marketing & management, he has no formal education revolving around engineering, nor programming. His linkedin profile shows his attributes and they all revolve around marketing and management, his work history shows all his positions revolved around marketing and management.

There was no backpedalling because nobody from MS ever even once in any interview, video, tweet or anything have mentioned or even used the words bus width regarding scorpio.

 

[mrcorbo]

I think you're splitting hairs. Eurogamer admitted they misquoted his mis-statement. Honour was restored. I can't see any reason why Microsoft would want to back peddle or not be transparent about the bus width, it's arguably less important than the throughput and neither indicate latency.

No. It's really important that he *said* 384Mb/s, but *meant* 320Mb/s and didn't *say* 320Mb/s but Eurogamer wrote it as 384Mb/s.

And, whether you can see a reason or not, it is a fact that MS are not being transparent about bus width. It could just be they want to make the big reveal just that little bit bigger when it finally happens. After all of this time, the games industry is the last place I've come to expect information distribution to be sensible.

 

[BRiT]

Why are people are assuming they wont offset the initial launch price of Scorpio to win huge market shares? They would make it up through the sale of a couple games and increasing their consumer footprint. I wouldnt be surprised if they opt to launch it at a slight loss from hardware cost standpoint.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It was a misstatement on Penello's part. Not a misquote by Eurogamer.

Eurogamer called it a "misquote".

No. It's really important that he *said* 384Mb/s, but *meant* 320Mb/s and didn't *say* 320Mb/s but Eurogamer wrote it as 384Mb/s.

Or hopefully bandwidth three orders of magnitude more powerful!

And, whether you can see a reason or not, it is a fact that MS are not being transparent about bus width. It could just be they want to make the big reveal just that little bit bigger when it finally happens.

It may be Microsoft know what level of throughput they need to target but have not yet decided which of their various technical options they will use to implement it. I'm not seeing anything untoward here.

Why are people are assuming they wont offset the initial launch price of Scorpio to win huge market shares? They would make it up through the sale of a couple games and increasing their consumer footprint. I wouldnt be surprised if they opt to launch it at a slight loss from hardware cost standpoint.

Because Microsoft is a company with a dubious history with monopoly legislators and adopting a predatory pricing strategy is probably not the greatest idea. Personally I don't see how this would realistically result in a huge market share, for Microsoft's share to grow, Sony's console share would need to shrink (or at least freeze for perpetuity) so you'd need to attract a sizeable portion of existing PlayStation owners to Scorpio otherwise you're just subsiding people already in the Xbox ecosystem. I.e. you're basically giving people who would have probably bought the console anyway, a cheaper console. They've buying the same games so you're not making more from them.

How is this supposed to be profitable?

 

[mrcorbo]

Eurogamer called it a "misquote".

No. What they said was, "In a previous version of this article, Albert Penello was quoted as saying 384Gb/s in memory bandwidth, when he actually meant 320Gb/s in memory bandwidth. We apologise for the error."

Said vs. meant not said vs said and no mention of them misquoting anywhere. The error was in not asking for clarification before printing what was an obvious discrepancy between what was being quoted and what had been previously revealed.

It may be Microsoft know what level of throughput they need to target but have not yet decided which of their various technical options they will use to implement it. I'm not seeing anything untoward here.

That's possible. I don't think there's anything untoward either way, though. Withholding information really only becomes a problem once you start selling the thing.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

No. What they said was, "In a previous version of this article, Albert Penello was quoted as saying 384Gb/s in memory bandwidth, when he actually meant 320Gb/s in memory bandwidth. We apologise for the error."

You're right, my bad.

That's possible. I don't think there's anything untoward either way, though. Withholding information really only becomes a problem once you start selling the thing.

The bus width isn't going to swap anybody's purchase decision. I can't imagine their are people who will buy Scorpio if it has a 384-bit bus but are out of it's a 256-bit bus.

 

[eastmen]

Going wider is always the last resort to clocking faster for throughput and it has cost implications on the whole system unless you're using some weird design like PS2's 2,560-bit bus where Sony found a cost/benefit to going wide but slow. The more lanes you have the more scope you have for on-chip and off-chop crosstalk so you have to use fundamentally better (more expensive) materials and processes throughout, including the PCB.

Remember One and PS4 were based around relatively cheap technology at launch. Conservative 1.6 and 1.75 Ghz Jaguar cores when TSMC’s 28nm process was capable of delivering 2 Ghz chips.. Pro is similarly conservative. Scorpio is not.

Others have brought up good points however I just want to say thy are already wide at 256bit bus. Going higher will not be as costly as you believe and can be made up with slightly slow but cheaper ram.

Why are people are assuming they wont offset the initial launch price of Scorpio to win huge market shares? They would make it up through the sale of a couple games and increasing their consumer footprint. I wouldnt be surprised if they opt to launch it at a slight loss from hardware cost standpoint.

No idea , they can also do a split sku like they did with the xbox 360. have a $400 base unit and then a $500 premium that comes with a larger drive and maybe a pack and make up the price diffrence

Because Microsoft is a company with a dubious history with monopoly legislators and adopting a predatory pricing strategy is probably not the greatest idea. Personally I don't see how this would realistically result in a huge market share, for Microsoft's share to grow, Sony's console share would need to shrink (or at least freeze for perpetuity) so you'd need to attract a sizeable portion of existing PlayStation owners to Scorpio otherwise you're just subsiding people already in the Xbox ecosystem. I.e. you're basically giving people who would have probably bought the console anyway, a cheaper console. They've buying the same games so you're not making more from them.

How is this supposed to be profitable?

You'd have a point if it wasn't the way the console industry has always operated. Sony sold all its systems including the ps4 at a loss for some amount of time before they became profitable to sell. So I don't think there would be any case against MS just following a normal business strategy used by the industry players. I mean they've done it at least twice already with no problems

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Others have brought up good points however I just want to say thy are already wide at 256bit bus. Going higher will not be as costly as you believe and can be made up with slightly slow but cheaper ram.

256-bit wide buses have been in use for around 10 years. They're the norm. Also Microsoft can't really put slow RAM in there because they're targeting 320Gb/s bandwidth. What is this cheap RAM you refer too?

You'd have a point if it wasn't the way the console industry has always operated. Sony sold all its systems including the ps4 at a loss for some amount of time before they became profitable to sell.

Selling at a loss is one thing, selling low with the intention of land grabbing market share is not. That's what BRiT proposed and that is the essence of predatory pricing.

 

[BRiT]

Do you really view an offset of $50 off a console to be considered Predatory Pricing?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Do you really view an offset of $50 off a console to be considered Predatory Pricing?

Unfortunately for Microsoft this determination of whether Microsoft was guilty of determined predatory pricing would be put to twelve random Americans. But if Microsoft had emails proposing exactly that it would be disclosable and damning.

But. Twelve random Americans.

 

[mpg1]

Why are people are assuming they wont offset the initial launch price of Scorpio to win huge market shares? They would make it up through the sale of a couple games and increasing their consumer footprint. I wouldnt be surprised if they opt to launch it at a slight loss from hardware cost standpoint.

Yeah I have thought about this. I think Microsoft now has an opportunity to get back on top if they price Scoprio low enough. Scorpio launching at $399 would really Sony in a tough bind.