• 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)

Arkos

Nose how to spell and rede to
It really seems like the Xbox One was rushed

Yeah that seems like one of its main problems, a lot of the decisions seem so poor that haste has to be a factor I'd think

Anybody know why Xbone costs $5 more to assemble? I'm guessing it's the Kinect or something rather than better wages, just curious
 
It's not AMD they are paying it is the Foundry. I think it is TSMC. THe AMD design is a single cost with perhaps a royalty per chip that will not show up on a teardown. I think the Xbox die may cost more if it is bigger.

Look up.

Edit: NM new page. I addressed this.

Notice I said pay AMD. As in, how much was the PS4 design contract vs the XB1 contract. I'm pretty sure AMD isn't that involved in manufacturing.

I want to know the prices if the design contracts, because the last indication we got is that MS poured a shit load more money into their project.
 

Skenzin

Banned
While Sony hit a home run hardware wise. Their downfall in the States is a lackluster online service. While GAF love may prefer offline gaming, the Word I'm hearing among social circles is people are willing to give up power for a well integrated gaming experience. Seamless party chat and gaming lobbies. Online voice quality and overall network dependability.

I don't own a One. But I've heard from several people who were not thrilled with their first PSN experience and have expressed a better overall experience online gaming on the Bone.

Sony has much work to do, software wise, if they want to be THE gaming console for the shooter crowd. So much potential is there.
 

CoG

Member
X360 was billion times better designed console than PS3. Pretty much equal amount of power for a lot less money.

Are you kidding? The PS3 was a clusterfuck in frankenstien technology but the 360 was the most poorly designed CE device in history.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
The irony for me is that for all their pretensions of aiming for multimedia functionality, the only thing that Sony can't replicate from Xbone is the HDMI in. Sony set out to build a gaming box and along the way they built a better multimedia box too. Xbone is a true cornucopia of incompetence.
 

SeanR1221

Member
While Sony hit a home run hardware wise. Their downfall in the States is a lackluster online service. While GAF love may prefer offline gaming, the Word I'm hearing among social circles is people are willing to give up power for a well integrated gaming experience. Seamless party chat and gaming lobbies. Online voice quality and overall network dependability.

I don't own a One. But I've heard from several people who were not thrilled with their first PSN experience and have expressed a better overall experience online gaming on the Bone.

Sony has much work to do, software wise, if they want to be THE gaming console for the shooter crowd. So much potential is there.


Um...party chat is worse on xb1
 

stryke

Member
While Sony hit a home run hardware wise. Their downfall in the States is a lackluster online service. While GAF love may prefer offline gaming, the Word I'm hearing among social circles is people are willing to give up power for a well integrated gaming experience. Seamless party chat and gaming lobbies. Online voice quality and overall network dependability.

I don't own a One. But I've heard from several people who were not thrilled with their first PSN experience and have expressed a better overall experience online gaming on the Bone.

Sony has much work to do, software wise, if they want to be THE gaming console for the shooter crowd. So much potential is there.

I don't understand what this has to do with BoM....
 
The irony for me is that for all their pretensions of aiming for multimedia functionality, the only thing that Sony can't replicate from Xbone is the HDMI in. Sony set out to build a gaming box and along the way they built a better multimedia box too. Xbone is a true cornucopia of incompetence.

I don't think the PS4 is better for multimedia. Blu-ray.com reviewed the Blu-ray capabilities of both and put the Bone ahead of the PS4. I don't think anyone can accuse them of bias.

That may change in the future as Sony get it together for Blu-ray playback and other media functions like DLNA and such, but for now the Bone is undeniably better for media, at least in the US.
 

kmg90

Member
While Sony hit a home run hardware wise. Their downfall in the States is a lackluster online service. While GAF love may prefer offline gaming, the Word I'm hearing among social circles is people are willing to give up power for a well integrated gaming experience. Seamless party chat and gaming lobbies. Online voice quality and overall network dependability.

I don't own a One. But I've heard from several people who were not thrilled with their first PSN experience and have expressed a better overall experience online gaming on the Bone.

Sony has much work to do, software wise, if they want to be THE gaming console for the shooter crowd. So much potential is there.

As a owner of a PS3 since early 2007 and PS4 launch owner the PSN experience is leagues better on PS4... Party chat is "seamless" and joining friends is as simple as viewing their profile and selecting join game (which provides amazing detail about the actual game session like game mode, player count and player list)

The streaming stuff is incredibly stable and it's easy to snap from game to live stream or vice versa...

To say that the PS4 PSN experience doesn't give Xbox One Live experience a run for it's money is objectively untrue
 

Sushen

Member
While Sony hit a home run hardware wise. Their downfall in the States is a lackluster online service. While GAF love may prefer offline gaming, the Word I'm hearing among social circles is people are willing to give up power for a well integrated gaming experience. Seamless party chat and gaming lobbies. Online voice quality and overall network dependability.

I don't own a One. But I've heard from several people who were not thrilled with their first PSN experience and have expressed a better overall experience online gaming on the Bone.

Sony has much work to do, software wise, if they want to be THE gaming console for the shooter crowd. So much potential is there.
You haven't read the XBone chat problem thread, have you? Spreading your assumption as a fact is not nice; you don't even own a XBone.
 

CozMick

Banned
I don't think the PS4 is better for multimedia. Blu-ray.com reviewed the Blu-ray capabilities of both and put the Bone ahead of the PS4. I don't think anyone can accuse them of bias.

That may change in the future as Sony get it together for Blu-ray playback and other media functions like DLNA and such, but for now the Bone is undeniably better for media, at least in the US.

And there we have it,

MS lose ground in Europe and still continue to shit on them.
 
Too many internal agendas with that box and they severely underestimated their competitor. Textbook mistakes. MS should be proud.

Looking at Surface 2 (an rt device, also coincidentally $499) and its performance/price against the new 8.1 Bay Trail tablets (like the Omni 10, Venue 11, Transformer 100), you have to wonder where the Hell all the money is going in Redmond's r&d. If Ballmer hadn't already stepped down his shareholders would have been outside his door with pitchforks and torches for betting on ARM and esRAM in the same year.

All of the Xbox hardware launches have been money losers because of preventable bad design choices.
 
Looking at the internals of both I would not say the Xbone has better build quality.

Are you sure?

Xbone have more power phases than PS4 for less watts requeriment, ie. Having more hardware features like HDMI in or WiFi direct means more things to be included, meanwhile PS4 have parts like low end mobile WiFi module.

Little thought was put into PS4 motherboard layout, and will be pretty noticeable with the next slim revision.

The only thing that annoy me about XBone is the presence of some wet capacitors.

X360 was billion times better designed console than PS3. Pretty much equal amount of power for a lot less money.

I find pretty funny that dogma. 360 was far better design than PS3, and Sony studios destroyed MS first party production in a quantity level.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
I don't think the PS4 is better for multimedia. Blu-ray.com reviewed the Blu-ray capabilities of both and put the Bone ahead of the PS4. I don't think anyone can accuse them of bias.

That may change in the future as Sony get it together for Blu-ray playback and other media functions like DLNA and such, but for now the Bone is undeniably better for media, at least in the US.

I meant that the only feature they can't replicate through software updates in the future is HDMI in, not speaking currently.
 
All the talk about the Xbone possible switch from DDR3 to DDR4 reminds me of the old speculation in console rumors. Some gaffers speculated that Sony could switch the GDDR5 to Stacked DDR3. Not sure if it can be done though.
 

CoG

Member
I don't think the PS4 is better for multimedia. Blu-ray.com reviewed the Blu-ray capabilities of both and put the Bone ahead of the PS4. I don't think anyone can accuse them of bias.

That may change in the future as Sony get it together for Blu-ray playback and other media functions like DLNA and such, but for now the Bone is undeniably better for media, at least in the US.

Sony will fix the Blu-ray functionality in short time but the real multimedia functionality is in the apps like Netflix and Amazon which are markedly better on the PS4. At this point, nobody is buying a $400 - 500 console for media functionality alone.
 

LoveCake

Member
While Sony hit a home run hardware wise. Their downfall in the States is a lackluster online service. While GAF love may prefer offline gaming, the Word I'm hearing among social circles is people are willing to give up power for a well integrated gaming experience. Seamless party chat and gaming lobbies. Online voice quality and overall network dependability.

I don't own a One. But I've heard from several people who were not thrilled with their first PSN experience and have expressed a better overall experience online gaming on the Bone.

Sony has much work to do, software wise, if they want to be THE gaming console for the shooter crowd. So much potential is there.

What is GAF love ?

I prefer offline gaming myself, there is too much abuse going online with youngsters playing FPS games swearing at everyone else.

I think Sony knew they could not make the same mistakes they did with the PS3 making it hard to program for, they said they were gong to listen to the developers & it sounds as they have done.

The higher price for the X1 really seems to come down to the Kinect camera/controller, as i mentioned in a earlier post in this thread i wonder how much the 32MB ESRAM for the X1 costs, i have heard that it is expensive like the ERDAM in the WiiU.
 

borghe

Loves the Greater Toronto Area
X360 was billion times better designed console than PS3. Pretty much equal amount of power for a lot less money.

this is highly disingenuous. much of the early cost of PS3 came down to included blu-ray and larger hard drive sizes (remember that The 20GB PS3 was only $100 more than the 20GB 360, and the $200 more PS3 came with a 60GB drive as well as built in wireless, both also coming with HDMI, etc)

also I would argue that the 360 wasn't a "better designed" console. Sony's first party 2013 output can attest to that. What I will agree with is that the 360 was designed much closer to the architecture devs were already familiar with on the PC, both in terms of hardware and APIs. The learning curve on PS3 development was extremely steep especially when it came to porting tools, whereas the learning curve on 360.. well, there basically wasn't a learning curve coming from PC (and basically XBox) development.

People keep trying to equate PS3 to xbone, but the comparison falls apart when you look at it with any sort of depth.
 
Just goes to show that MS was hell-bent on giving us what they wanted instead of giving us what we wanted. It's a sub-par gaming box hardwired for subscriptions and microtransactions.

Juxtapose this with Mark Rein (Epic Games) when he commented "It's abundantly clear that PS4 is being driven as a collaboration between East and West, as opposed to a dictation from one side to the other. Developers are fully involved, activated, discussed and doing really cool collaborative things."

PlayStation 4 was designed by game developers, in the truest sense of the word.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
You guys need to take a look at the WHY of things for once.

Microsoft had a goal for their console which required a minimum of 8 gigs of RAM.
For once? Their rationale for doing that has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum for months now. Sorry if no one feels a strong need to keep rehashing the point.

Okay, so let me flip the question. If you would have asked MS engineers designing the Xbox One how much ram it would have, what would they say?

My point is engineers have a job and they do the best with the requirements given to them. They needed the ESRAM to offset the DDR3 bottleneck so they went and spent the silicon on that.
Engineers shouldn't simply have to "do their best" with requirements handed to them, they could push back, you know. If I were MS' hardware engineers, I'd certainly at least start by asking the software engineers to justify the need for 3 GIGABYTES OF RAM to be reserved just for OS services, fully 40% of the total XBO RAM budget and a 600% increase in RAM reserved for the OS relative to the 360 ratio, just to offer multimedia capabilities that can be matched largely by devices already on the market that sell for $99 or less.

I'm not saying that Sony didn't do everything in their power to arrange a certain outcome. But the rhetoric on here that Sony was a seer is kind of nuts.
Regardless of past performance, Sony really had their act together on this one. They weren't chasing some blinkered notion of where the market was heading like MS, or trying to compete on too many fronts like MS as well, like they themselves did with the PS3. Some of the praise may get hyperbolic, it happens.
 
I meant that the only feature they can't replicate through software updates in the future is HDMI in, not speaking currently.

Yes, that's true. Even Kinect can be replicated to a "good enough" standard with the PS Cam. I find it hard to believe that HDMI pass-through is going to be a key selling point, it's less useful than Kinect which, anecdotally, people seem to like.
 

satam55

Banned
Someone should create a new thread for this article:

Microsoft: Xbox’s $1B-Plus Loss Makes it a Sale Candidate, Says Nomura (Correction)
November 25, 2013, 12:18 P.M. ET By Tiernan Ray

Following word from Microsoft (MSFT) that it sold a million units of the Xbox One in the first 24 hours that the device was on sale, from Friday morning, Rick Sherlund with Nomura Equity Research, who ordered a unit on Friday, today reflects on the prospect of Xbox as Microsoft’s means of expansion into the consumer market.

After playing “Call of Duty,” “Forza 5,” and “Battlefield 4,” Sherlund, who has a Buy rating on the shares, runs through the profit and loss on the device first:

We have estimated 4.2 million Xbox One console units may be sold in the December quarter, but this may be ambitious given there is competition from Sony PlayStation 4 at $399 vs retail price of $499 for Xbox One and the product will only be available for a bit less than 6 weeks and in 13 countries. Xbox One includes the Kinect voice and motion sensing device in the higher price versus Sony. We suspect the number will be between 3 – 4 mil units, but have not altered estimates at this early stage. If there is demand for 4 million units, it is not clear there can actually be supply of this volume in the next 6 weeks. We believe Microsoft may lose about 5% – 10% on the Xbox One console for a negative gross margin versus break-even to a small profit on the Xbox 360. This is also likely true for Sony’s PlayStation 4, since early in the console cycle, companies tend to price below costs and drive costs lower over time as production increases to scale and component costs tend to fall […] Overall, after we include sales and marketing, R&D and G&A costs, we think Xbox is likely to lose money this year, and after the allocation of corporate level expenses likely loses over $1 billion.

Throw in the losses from the Nokia handset division, which Microsoft is acquiring for $7 billion, “We estimate the entire Entertainment and Devices Division (we still like the traditional structure) will lose money this year, even after nearly $2B of royalty income from licenses of IP from Android phones and tablets.”

Sherlund concludes Xbox is not Microsoft’s lever to the consumer market, and that it would be a “good candidate to spin-off to shareholders”:

We hate to be a damper on the feel good moment in the launch of Xbox One, and no disrespect to the terrific success of the Xbox team, but we have made the point previously that the business is just not that strategic to Microsoft if they need to narrow their focus and return greater value to shareholders […] It is just not enough, in our view, to cement Microsoft’s position in the consumer market when much of the broader video and music content is now already in your iPad or iPhone and available for mobile usage. Will Xbox One drive greater usage of Bing for search in the home? Maybe the presence in the home of Xbox permits searches and web surfing from the TV entertainment center. Is there a desire to have the Windows Phone or Windows tablet be an extension of Xbox One’s services and game play coordination? Sure. But is this enough to counter the encroachment of smartphones and tablets into the consumer space? , Not really, in our view. The growth in video games is on tablets and smartphones and the music and video content is already on the move in mobile smartphones and tablets. Sure, it’s nice to watch this on the big screen too, so we are not saying there is no market for this, just that it is probably not enough to cement Microsoft in the consumer space relative to disintermediating smartphones and tablets. There are other ways to get video and music; they are already on your tablet. Our apologies to the Xbox team for saying we thought it might lose as much as $2b this year; it is not that bad, but if new management asks for volunteers to get the band back together for a spin-out, it worked pretty well for Expedia […] With the top 2 layers of management already reassigned or off to other endeavors, getting the band back together is potentially awkward since Xbox does not exist as a business unit any longer; it is now broken up and distributed across functional areas.

Microsoft shares are up 6 cents at $37.63.

Correction: A prior version of this report referenced a Neutral rating on Microsoft stock. In fact, Sherlund maintains a Buy rating on the shares; the Neutral rating is his overall view of the software sector. My apologies for any confusion caused by the error.


http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2013/11/25/microsoft-xboxs-1b-plus-loss-makes-it-a-sale-candidate-says-nomura/
 

smr00

Banned
They should of released 2 versions. 1 with all this nonsense and one without the cable integration and kinect shit. I know some people care about it but i would rather save $100-200 and not have any of it.
 
this is highly disingenuous. much of the early cost of PS3 came down to included blu-ray and larger hard drive sizes (remember that The 20GB PS3 was only $100 more than the 20GB 360, and the $200 more PS3 came with a 60GB drive as well as built in wireless, both also coming with HDMI, etc)

also I would argue that the 360 wasn't a "better designed" console. Sony's first party 2013 output can attest to that. What I will agree with is that the 360 was designed much closer to the architecture devs were already familiar with on the PC, both in terms of hardware and APIs. The learning curve on PS3 development was extremely steep especially when it came to porting tools, whereas the learning curve on 360.. well, there basically wasn't a learning curve coming from PC (and basically XBox) development.

People keep trying to equate PS3 to xbone, but the comparison falls apart when you look at it with any sort of depth.
Like I said in next post 360 was over half cheaper manufacture than PS3 during 2007($323 vs $840). X360 had amazing power/price ratio. Blu-ray drive alone doesn't explain that huge difference.
 

Contra11

Banned
Are you kidding? The PS3 was a clusterfuck in frankenstien technology but the 360 was the most poorly designed CE device in history.

For a console that cost the twice to manufacture and came out a year later and it barely beat the xbox 360 in graphics i think the ps3 was a huge failure
 
Lol at people who actually puy weight in these breakdowns. Sony readally said they arw selling at a loss.

Also lol at people who think retailers make anythint off the consoles they sell. Ive worked at multiple retail outletw commonly mentioned here and had access to their margin numbers. The margin on these consoles is exactly 0%. They make money off the software and add ons exactly the same way they sell laptops at a loss
 
Well, that makes sense of a few things...

I guess that means I won't be picking up an Xbox for the foreseeable future. I had hoped at least a $100 discount was incoming, potentially without a Kinect, in a year or so, but this makes it seem highly unlikely. I really hope those parts are scalable price-wise or that $500 mark is going to keep looking mighty high.
 
"The other major silicon inside the Xbox One (shown in an exploded view above) is the memory. Unlike the PS4, which used higher-end GDDR5 memory chips, the Xbox One contains older — more common and less costly — DDR3 memory. Memory chips came from SK Hynix, and added about $60 to the cost, or about $28 less than what’s found in the PS4."
tPJqObQ.gif
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
You guys need to take a look at the WHY of things for once.

Microsoft had a goal for their console which required a minimum of 8 gigs of RAM. They designed a console that could, with minimal risk, meet that.

Microsoft could have went with GDDR5 but they would have had to take a risk that they could not release a console in 2013.

For once? You could have just read the thread and seen that posted many many many times over you know? People have been saying this for a LONG time, hell it was one of the first theories to emerge when we got the final specs.
 

Thrakier

Member
While Sony hit a home run hardware wise. Their downfall in the States is a lackluster online service. While GAF love may prefer offline gaming, the Word I'm hearing among social circles is people are willing to give up power for a well integrated gaming experience. Seamless party chat and gaming lobbies. Online voice quality and overall network dependability.

I don't own a One. But I've heard from several people who were not thrilled with their first PSN experience and have expressed a better overall experience online gaming on the Bone.

Sony has much work to do, software wise, if they want to be THE gaming console for the shooter crowd. So much potential is there.

PS4 online play is fine, just as PS3s was over time
 
Lol at people who actually puy weight in these breakdowns. Sony readally said they arw selling at a loss.

Also lol at people who think retailers make anythint off the consoles they sell. Ive worked at multiple retail outletw commonly mentioned here and had access to their margin numbers. The margin on these consoles is exactly 0%. They make money off the software and add ons exactly the same way they sell laptops at a loss

I don't think anyone would dispute what you're saying. These aren't meant to include all costs, only the hardware. Sony and MS's hardware is both just under as far as estimates go, and this doesn't include things like R&D costs that the company itself will figure in. I think both consoles are probably selling at a loss, or at break-even at best. As you said, on all sides of the industry, retail included, there's almost never money to be made on actual hardware (Nintendo being the exception at times over the years).

I think most people are surprised that a box with lesser power, still costs more than the PS4 hardware-wise even after the Kinect is removed.
 

Drek

Member
I don't think the PS4 is better for multimedia. Blu-ray.com reviewed the Blu-ray capabilities of both and put the Bone ahead of the PS4. I don't think anyone can accuse them of bias.

That may change in the future as Sony get it together for Blu-ray playback and other media functions like DLNA and such, but for now the Bone is undeniably better for media, at least in the US.

They put the Xbox ahead because of Kinect controls and HDMI pass through, it wasn't due to blu-ray playback where both are sub-standard compared to even stand alone players.

Also, blu-ray.com isn't exactly a technically elite website. They do an ok job but there are more than a few in the AVS forum crowd who are better at highly detailed AV critiques.

Both are media deficient compared to their predecessors. The Xbox 360 never really opened it's arms to DLNA and uPNP while the PS3 did. Microsoft has never written a quality blu-ray decoder/driver set while Sony has in multiple instances, including the PS3.

I'd say it's highly likely that within six months time the PS4 will be far and away the superior media box, unless you REALLY need to have snap.

Anyhow, I told people repeatedly on here that they were crazy to think the XB1's APU was going to cost less than the PS4's. ~5 billion transistors v. ~3 billion. That difference is just massive from a fabrication standpoint. The real question is how long it will take MS to shrink their APU die compared to the PS4's already more streamlined design. Both are 28-nm process, the PS4's physical size is 328-mm while the Xbox One's is 363-mm.

Who can shrink fastest will be the price point winner, and MS is starting off with a disadvantage created by the ESRAM.
 
Top Bottom