Yoshida confirms SCE working on new hardware

[jonabbey]

Of course, MS went with a next-gen CPU as well, one derived from the work that Sony paid for the PPU portion of Cell's development.

 

[patsu]

Well, he might have had final decision, but did he really sit and negotiate all of the hardware on his own?

He spec'ed the details of the Cell CPU. IBM tried to convince him to go homogeneous (like the XCPU), and later go fewer cores (but more power per core). He overturned them and insisted on 8 simple cores.

In similar vein, someone needs to spec and follow up with the GPU one. ^_^

Procurement people has the network and policies/processes, but they may not be able to set h/w direction for a next-gen console.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I'm just saying there are way to many variables to determine if Sony could have gotten a better deal on their GPU, and the only people that know are the ones that sat in the meetings and did the test and evaluation. Saying it was all on one guy who overworked himself is a lame reason, because that's just not how hi-tech companies work. Even if he had final decision, he wasn't sitting in those meetings by himself, operating in a vacuum. If that is how they work, then I'm not surprised they lost their hold on the far and away #1 position in the console space. That would just be an embarrassing way to do business.

 

[patsu]

True, but at that time, he's the guy (in a unique position) who could make leeway for budget and technical decision. He's also the guy who decide how high Sony wanted to hit.

I believe they reactivated nVidia to do some custom/more work after the initial RSX job was done. I wonder what that's for. I remember nVidia reported an unexpected revenue from that consultancy work.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Of course, MS went with a next-gen CPU as well.

No, they went with a conventional multicore, shared cache architecture, as conventional as RSX was a conventional GPU. Sony went with a new CPU architecture designed around different principles to existing CPUs, and MS went with a new GPU architecture designed around different principles to existing GPUs. Neither broke the mould in both departments.

 

[Rangers]

If the PS3 had shipped with a better GPU, it couldn't have shipped with the Cell processor. Price matters and the PS3 was costing Sony a huge amount of money. The system had incredible price tag at launch. Throwing in even more expensive hardware could have been a death blow. The PS3 was launched as it was for a reason. You could make the same arguments about xbox, having a better CPU, more EDRAM, more RAM. In the end, it just ends up being a console priced like a computer, which is probably something people don't want.

Most of PS3's price was due to Blu Ray though, not the CPU or GPU which were in league with what 360 had cost wise. In simplistic terms, at launch, the PS3 was a $400 machine with $200 of Blu Ray. The 360 was a $400 machine with no Blu Ray. Arguing over a few bucks on CPU, GPU or RAM pales in comparison.

 

[liolio]

Most of PS3's price was due to Blu Ray though, not the CPU or GPU which were in league with what 360 had cost wise. In simplistic terms, at launch, the PS3 was a $400 machine with $200 of Blu Ray. The 360 was a $400 machine with no Blu Ray. Arguing over a few bucks on CPU, GPU or RAM pales in comparison.

Hum I would not resume it to BRD player, it was indeed a healthy extra cost but then there are: more expansive RAM, bigger chips with lower yields, internal PSU and we should give this to Sony the overall quality(components how the thing is put together, cooling solution, etc. everything) was also way higher.

 

[Rangers]

Hum I would not resume it to BRD player, it was indeed a healthy extra cost but then there are: more expansive RAM, bigger chips with lower yields, internal PSU and we should give this to Sony the overall quality(components how the thing is put together, cooling solution, etc. everything) was also way higher.

I disagree with "way higher". All were dwarfed by early costs of Blu Ray, though. Hell Blu Ray is probably still a somewhat significant extra cost for PS3 vs 360, 3.5 years after launch. I'd agree the PS3 was more expensive than 360 even sans Blu Ray (better quality, Cell being difficult to manufacture/larger, etc) but if you really look at the machines, we're dealing with roughly similar amounts of silicon and roughly similar costs outside Blu Ray.

 

[RudeCurve]

I disagree with "way higher". All were dwarfed by early costs of Blu Ray, though. Hell Blu Ray is probably still a somewhat significant extra cost for PS3 vs 360, 3.5 years after launch. I'd agree the PS3 was more expensive than 360 even sans Blu Ray (better quality, Cell being difficult to manufacture/larger, etc) but if you really look at the machines, we're dealing with roughly similar amounts of silicon and roughly similar costs outside Blu Ray.

Agreed the cheapest BR drives for PC are still around $100 retail. Cheapest DVD drives are around $10.

 

[TheChefO]

I disagree with "way higher". All were dwarfed by early costs of Blu Ray, though. Hell Blu Ray is probably still a somewhat significant extra cost for PS3 vs 360, 3.5 years after launch. I'd agree the PS3 was more expensive than 360 even sans Blu Ray (better quality, Cell being difficult to manufacture/larger, etc) but if you really look at the machines, we're dealing with roughly similar amounts of silicon and roughly similar costs outside Blu Ray.

Agreed.

However, current BRD costs are pretty comparable to DVD prices and getting cheaper by the month ($60retail vs $20retail). PS3 premiums are standard HDD required, dual 128bit ram bus, slightly larger chips.

Not sure what their licensing costs are with Nvidia, but assuming they got a better deal than MSFT had with them

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In simplistic terms, at launch, the PS3 was a $400 machine with $200 of Blu Ray.

If true, it was launched selling at cost prive with no loss to Sony, and we all know that's not true. More like it was an $800 machine with $200 of BRD and $600 of everything else. XB360 is going to be cheaper as it has smaller components and more mainstream components.

 

[Grall]

I disagree with "way higher".

I agree with "way higher".

PS3 never saw anything like the failure rates of the 360. Never. Not even now, years later, are the oldest and hottest-running PS3s dying in droves like the 360s did after sometimes only months of service.

Quality is just way higher. Way way higher. Shit, Sony put solid caps and proadlizers on those mobos when MS stuck with cheap electrolyte crap.

 

[Rangers]

So why would it cost $600 when the silicon was about the same?

A quality motherboard cost $200 difference? My $80 cheap Intel PC motherboard bought 2 years ago when I built this machine has solid capacitors.

I guess there's no point to this as we dont have Sony's cost sheet. However, we can be reasonable, and I think it's clear PS3 and 360 are similar except for "quality" and Blu Ray. And of course, one year difference in cost curve. Considering entire motherboards are fairly cheap, I dont think the difference between a "quality" one and a nebulously "less" quality one is great. Besides, weren't 360 failures largely due to X clamp, design flaws, GPU heat, not the motherboard?

Or to attack this from another angle, the PS3 is currently profitable at 299. Meaning a BOM something like $270 or less (it sells to retail for $280). Given distribution costs, assembly costs, and everything else in the machine, How much can the motherboard cost? $30?

Considering 360 launched at 399, I think PS3 would have done the same sans Blu Ray.

 

[corduroygt]

Agreed the cheapest BR drives for PC are still around $100 retail. Cheapest DVD drives are around $10.

BR drives are now $59 for a much faster unit with higher quality optics than found in the PS3 at Newegg,

 

[corduroygt]

So why would it cost $600 when the silicon was about the same?

A quality motherboard cost $200 difference? My $80 cheap Intel PC motherboard bought 2 years ago when I built this machine has solid capacitors.

I guess there's no point to this as we dont have Sony's cost sheet. However, we can be reasonable, and I think it's clear PS3 and 360 are similar except for "quality" and Blu Ray. And of course, one year difference in cost curve. Considering entire motherboards are fairly cheap, I dont think the difference between a "quality" one and a nebulously "less" quality one is great. Besides, weren't 360 failures largely due to X clamp, design flaws, GPU heat, not the motherboard?

Or to attack this from another angle, the PS3 is currently profitable at 299. Meaning a BOM something like $270 or less (it sells to retail for $280). Given distribution costs, assembly costs, and everything else in the machine, How much can the motherboard cost? $30?

Considering 360 launched at 399, I think PS3 would have done the same sans Blu Ray.

You're way off. Just look at the difference between these two motherboards:

PS3 also had a hard drive which added to the cost as well.

 

[RudeCurve]

BR drives are now $59 for a much faster unit with higher quality optics than found in the PS3 at Newegg,

That's still a $50 difference.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It wouldn't have had to big a bigger, more expensive GPU, but a more efficient one. Xenos is no more expensive (in terms of die size). A US design with the same transistor count as RSX would have been better. Sony appear to have picked the worse of two options and ATi could ahve furnished them with something more exciting; we've no idea what the third and maybe fourth options would have been like.

It would have cost more in terms of up front cost however. Rather than using a virtual "off-the-shelf" part, they would have needed to spend addition money to pay for the R&D of a more efficient chip. They could have used a G8x chip but then that would have delayed the console even more.

The RSX was most definitely a cost saving measure in a console where the cost of manufacture was already ballooning out of control.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Most of PS3's price was due to Blu Ray though, not the CPU or GPU which were in league with what 360 had cost wise. In simplistic terms, at launch, the PS3 was a $400 machine with $200 of Blu Ray. The 360 was a $400 machine with no Blu Ray. Arguing over a few bucks on CPU, GPU or RAM pales in comparison.

You also have to realize that the inclusion of a BluRay drive wasn't predicted to be as expensive as it turned out to be. The shortages of the laser crystals used effectively increased the price of the drive beyond what was originally planned. Also contributing to the additional delay for the launch.

When viewed in light of the cost/time sacrifice using RSX possibly represented, it's my opinion that Sony had all intentions of matching MS's release day for X360 or at least only following a few months after rather than almost a year.

Basically, yes, BluRay was a large chunk of the original PS3, but it wasn't planned to be that large of a cost and probably far more than 200 USD, probably closer to 300-400 in the buildup to launch.

Also the original cost to manufacture was higher than 400 USD. Things that are cheap now weren't so much back then. Including wireless for example was probably anywhere from 20-30 USD. The MB was probably 100+ on it's own. Who knows how much Nvidia was charging for RSX useage. Likewise Cell production was still early and prone to defects, increasing the cost of the CPU itself. Then there's memory, touch controls instead of buttons, accelerometers in the controllers leading to lack of rumble as a cost cutting measure, etc...

Regards,
SB

 

[patsu]

Yeah, don't think a unified shader GPU is feasible given the situation at that time. The extra nVidia job is interesting though.

The lack of rumble is a legal issue, may not be a cost cutting measure.

Blu-ray is a separate business on its own. It would have its own P&L. PS3 is just the first client.

The economy downturn and weak US currency were also partly to blame for the losses.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

If true, it was launched selling at cost prive with no loss to Sony, and we all know that's not true. More like it was an $800 machine with $200 of BRD and $600 of everything else. XB360 is going to be cheaper as it has smaller components and more mainstream components.

I thought iSuppli had the BD drive at $125 in 2006.