-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Xbox One Costs $90 More to Build Than PS4, Teardown Shows ($75 Kinect 2)
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Also, the cost of the box without Kinect is $347 by this estimate vs $381 for PS4. A Kinect-less SKU would not have much more price flexibility than the PS4 in the grand scheme and GDDR5 prices will come down faster than DDR3 which is already close to base cost. Add in pressure on MS to profit from the outset with the Bone and if anything a Kinect-less SKU will not be able to undercut the PS4 at all and it will be a straight fight on power and first party games, one that I don't believe MS can win.
$407 was the final figure.
$407 was the final figure.
sssstententen
Member
You do realize that companies do that BECAUSE the consoles cost so much and they don't make much if any profit on the system itself but the peripherals sold at a high high markup?
It's pretty standard across the consumer tech industry.
Nightengale
Member
gundamkyoukai
Member
Question i remember you saying Sony losing $60 on each consoles is that the same for every region .
Also wondering that about MS also that is if you can answer .
And much lower losses relatively. To get back to last gen style losses they'd need to price the systems at $200 or $100. And they'd at least push mass volume without issue at that cost if they survived the aftermath.
Oppo
Member
Hard to argue against this, when you connect those dots.
so what you are saying is -EL CUDO said:
Because of previous behavior, they perhaps can not Xbox Live Gold anymore?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Sony, GDDR5 prices will come down a bit in the near term while DDR3 is already at base cost. Also, GDDR5 will continued to be developed for a longer period of time than DDR3 as well which will help Sony as the investment required will be carried out anyway, rather than adding significantly to the cost of the chips they purchase.
Basically, yes. It's just a methodology difference.
Slackbladder
Member
Sure, I get that. Still seems a horrendous mark up though. And dodgy practices are dodgy practices, even if everyone does them.
Manmademan
Member
no, the PS4 GPU is significantly more powerful. The reason the Xbone is struggling with anything over 720p isn't because of the RAM.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
That was based on non-final figures. On the final figure we think a $30-40 loss is more reasonable in the US and Japan. In Europe they are probably breaking even.
As for MS, losing $10-20 in the US, marginally profitable in Europe.
Breakdown comparison for those interested.
PS4
Console: $348
- CPU/GPU: $100
- RAM: $88
- Power Supply: $20
- Optical Drive: $28
- Hard Drive: $37
- Other: $75
Controller: $18
Box Contents: $6
Assembly: $9
Total: $382
Xbox One
Console: $357
- CPU/GPU: $110
- RAM: $60
- Power Supply: $25
- Optical Drive: $28
- Hard Drive: $37
- Other: $98
Controller: $15
Kinect: $75
Box Contents: $10
Assembly: $14
Total: $471
I'm honestly surprised. I thought the console would cost a good $50 less, given DDR3 and simpler design.
PS4
Console: $348
- CPU/GPU: $100
- RAM: $88
- Power Supply: $20
- Optical Drive: $28
- Hard Drive: $37
- Other: $75
Controller: $18
Box Contents: $6
Assembly: $9
Total: $382
Xbox One
Console: $357
- CPU/GPU: $110
- RAM: $60
- Power Supply: $25
- Optical Drive: $28
- Hard Drive: $37
- Other: $98
Controller: $15
Kinect: $75
Box Contents: $10
Assembly: $14
Total: $471
I'm honestly surprised. I thought the console would cost a good $50 less, given DDR3 and simpler design.
geek_box12
Banned
How? This does not even account for economy of scale, which allows Microsoft to get lower prices for buying in high volume.
These reports are pointless.
Not entirely true. The ESRam takes up a large portion of the APU die, the lack of die space means that the GPU can't be as powerful as the PS4s.
Prince Vultan
Banned
Uh... so MS aren't actually making a profit on each console sold?
Wowzers.
Wowzers.
Crimson_Gold
Member
Figures from Zomg do include economies of scale.
It's a miracle it performs as good as it does imo. From the earlier leaks it looks like the gaming people left on the Xbox team had to fight to not go with ARM CPU's.
Sounds like the RAM setup isn't helping things though.
This is probably the weirdest price discrepancy yet. Most of the time there is an esoteric advantage to be had, like Saturn's 2D raw power or the Cell pushing the PS3 ahead visually if you could master it, even if they weren't ENOUGH to justify cost. But this, it just straight up seems to be "pay more for less," the closest thing to an esoteric advantage it has is just a bandaid making up for using DDR3 rather than GDDR5.
3rdamention
Member
Yeah, that is crazy. Xbox One costs still $15 more to build than the PS4, if you threw out Kinect. I think this is really eye opening for everyone who keeps saying "Throw out Kinect and drop the price and I will buy it."
Right now, even if they threw out Kinect, it would be difficult to still undercut the PS4 price point (sure they could at least match it). But by the time Microsoft CAN drop the price, the PS4 will be more than ready to do so as well.
Looks like Price Point is always going to be an area that Sony will be able to win.
LordBaztion
Member
So, a kinectless SKU will cost no less than $400. Pretty fucked up.
Not really. It's likely that DDR3 + eSRAM was a choice made early on to guarantee 8GB of RAM. Sony chose GDDR5 for the performance + simplicity and lucked out when it became available in higher densities. Remember that the PS4 originally only had 4GB of RAM.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Well in that case, it's worse for them if they take out Kinect. I hadn't read their breakdown. The base cost of the console is actually higher here (we have a higher cost for Kinect on our report).
If Kinect is truly just $75 (which I think is undershooting) then how can they take out a $75 accessory, plus some assembly and a smaller box, so say $83 total taken out, it still leaves the Bone more expensive than the PS4 according to iSuppli at $388 vs $382 for PS4.
While I believe they have underestimated the cost of Kinect, they could be right and we could be wrong (though I wouldn't bet on it), if they are right then someone at MS fucked up hard. Really hard. Total console cost of $388 vs $382 for PS4 is absolutely shocking for a weaker box by a significant margin.
Pretty much. This is less MS screwing up and more the stars aligning for Sony.
Whiteshirt
Member
Isn't Microsoft using 2133mhz DDR3 or something? Binned memory can't be cheap, you have to wonder why they would even try to bandaid their bandwidth problems with both embedded memory (this isn't really a bandaid) and fast (but still comparatively slow) DDR3 memory. Its just adding to the cost of the console yet doesn't seem to serve a seriously good purpose unless I'm missing something.
shadowsdarknes
Member
So even without Kinect, the Xbone still costs slightly more than the PS4? Damn.
The Maverick
Member
Microsoft goofed, no ways around it. Not to mention that the PS4 will always be cheaper, and a very ugly picture is painted for Xbox this generation. I wonder where things would stand if this whole entertainment push never happened.
Sleeplessnights
Banned
eSRAM is this generation's cell processor.
I can't believe that three generations in Microsoft is still thick enough to attempt designing their own hardware rather than outsourcing it, especially considering last gen.
The Xbox One hardware is a marvel in how not to design consumer electronics. Bulky case, bulky external power supply, thick, non-standard connectors, motherboard layout that looks like it was spit out by college-grade circuit builder software, and I've seen better airflow design in PC gamers rigs. That would be all well and good if it was dirt cheap to produce, but for it to cost more to produce than the PS4 is just a colossal cockup.
The Xbox One hardware is a marvel in how not to design consumer electronics. Bulky case, bulky external power supply, thick, non-standard connectors, motherboard layout that looks like it was spit out by college-grade circuit builder software, and I've seen better airflow design in PC gamers rigs. That would be all well and good if it was dirt cheap to produce, but for it to cost more to produce than the PS4 is just a colossal cockup.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Sony have some phenomenal engineers.
feint_ruled
Member
Amazing how we thought the inclusion of 8GB of GDDR5 was so profligate at the time, only for it to it turn out to be a mere $28 difference in the final accounting.
Brad Grenz
Member
Truly crazy that by these figures MS basically took a 33% hit on GPU performance to only save a net $18 on RAM.
infiniteheteroskdasticity
Member
These are similar to the numbers we came up with. The difference in the apu cost is the added complexity of the embedded ram at the fab. I also think Sony will be able to drop bom quicker due to its ram being higher up on its cost curve. Add in sunk costs and distribution charges and neither console is profitable by itself. The internal pressures at both companies to make significant margin in the gaming business is interesting. I'm wondering if Microsoft and Sony come to some sort of gentleman's agreement to hold off on price cuts for a while to boost margins.
Vestal
Gold Member
Acquiescence
Member
How does a less powerful console end up costing 90 more dollars to make. That's wack.
Whiteshirt
Member
I thought so too until I saw the speed of Microsoft's DDR3. It aren't bargain bin 1066 or 1333mhz memory but rather 2133mhz stuff. Those speeds, I imagine, cost a bit more money than the stuff we tend to shove into our desktops.