ComputerMKII
Banned
CBOAT pls
Sony have some phenomenal engineers.
Well it's not really that bad compare to last gen .
Can't remember MS numbers but Sony was losing $300 on each console early on .
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.
Sony got a more powerful chip at less the cost than MS?
I'm sorry but...
Interesting. Seems it would be cheaper than the PS4 if they made a Kinectless one. Thy can save cost by removing the sensor and hve the OS just run regularly. But seems they really are forcing it in people.
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.
http://www.eat-sleep-game.com/news/2...413/#more-2143
Listening to Arthur Gies chat on that episode now.
"8 gigabytes of DDR5 RAM would be incredible - if it happens!"
"A) It's going to drive up the price B) It's going to cause more heat C) It takes more wattage from the power supply to drive it and D) It's going to be a supply chain problem"
"There's going to be a fucking price war on DDR5 this fall!"
"I don't know that the PS4 will have that much RAM in when it ships."
I seriously wish I had the patience to listen to it again, but if anyone wants a crash course on Arthur Gies 101, go back and listen to the February 26th episode of the Rebel FM podcast. Dude was on fire with Sony FUD after their announcement. I'll just give you a quick sampling of his statements on that episode.
-we'll see if PS4 actually has GDDR5 in it when it launches. Doesn't believe Sony.
-PS4 might very well have production problems due to using GDDR5, because it's very hard to make.
-PS4 is going to be uber expensive because it uses GDDR5.
-PS4 is going to be very large because of all the heat GDDR5 creates.
That is just a sampling from my memory, but I happen to listen to that episode a few months ago and had some great laughs at just how wrong he was over, and over, and over again.
Sony got a more powerful chip at less the cost than MS?
I'm sorry but...
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 guess there's that one common thread; they made the wrong bet. Microsoft was safer, and we'd have a real discussion of less RAM versus faster ram, but then they got to eat their cake and have it too.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.
no, the PS4 GPU is significantly more powerful. The reason the Xbone is struggling with anything over 720p isn't because of the RAM.
I wouldn't call that luck, more like better planning. I really don't get where the lucky narrative comes from because it doesn't seem that firmly based on reality. Sony's well connected in the semiconductor world, it wouldn't be all that shocking to know that they had a projection of GDDR5 prices and planned their console accordingly.they got lucky
DDR3 prices spiked because of that Hynix fire in china and GDDR5 prices dropped enough to jump to 8 gigs
because MS decided to go with DDR3 they had to make up for the bandwidth with ESRAM which took away area from the GPU
this.
from all account Sony was going with 4 originally and got lucky with pricing.
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.
Isn't MS paying more for the chip basically just because it's a bigger chip, hence more chance for problems in fabrication, hence fewer usable chips per wafer?
Isn't MS paying more for the chip basically just because it's a bigger chip, hence more chance for problems in fabrication, hence fewer usable chips per wafer?
You should look at the price of the APU with memory as one. Long term for both, the prices should really come down significantly, but I think the DDR3 has a much lower cost floor than GDDR5.
However, if the breakdown is correct MS really fucked themselves on the other costs like the "other" which I assume accounts for the cooling system and PCB complexity. I'm surprised their PSU is more expensive. Bigger enclosure with more components resulted in higher assembly cost. There's about 37 dollars worth of difference in the other categories (not including Kinect) between the consoles. That's big.
I thought the posts above made it pretty clear that it would still cost more.
On a side note, Sony must be getting one heck of a special discount from the hardware manufacturers. I smell unfair business practices afoot.
It's a BoM. This takes into account parts and manufacturing. If you're looking for profit margins then you need more info than this type of breakdown intends to give youAre these breakdowns ever right? Considering what Sony and Microsoft have said, the figures don't seem right. These figures obviously don't account for advertising, manufacturing, R&D, etc. which are hidden costs behind every electronic. Microsoft had said that they were making money, or at the very least, breaking even with each Xbox One sold. Sony had said the same thing if the consumer purchased a game or two alongside the console, suggesting that they're taking a hit with just the console purchase itself. These breakdowns don't jive with either story.
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.
I thought the posts above made it pretty clear that it would still cost more.
On a side note, Sony must be getting one heck of a special discount from the hardware manufacturers. I smell unfair business practices afoot.
why didn't MS go with the GDDR5 when it's only $28 more expensive? the XO APU being more expensive is understandable because of the eSRAM, someone at microsoft fucked up pretty badly.
MS will redesign around DDR4 and restrict any performance difference to maintain compatibility.They did something similar with later 360s and faster edram. Yield processes will improve price of XBone APU, but the redesign will be more complicated than Sony's because of the esram.
Basically MS will be able to reduce silicon costs better than Sony, BUT not by much. And if you factor in Kinect, it will be negligible. Sony will always be tied to GDDR ram.
Forgive me for asking this but what are the chances of MS releasing an upgraded XB1 sometime down the road? Has that ever been done with a console previously?
why didn't MS go with the GDDR5 when it's only $28 more expensive? the XO APU being more expensive is understandable because of the eSRAM, someone at microsoft fucked up pretty badly.
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.
It's not surprising. The Xbone PSU is external and has its own case and fan adding to the cost.
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.
Sure, I get that. Still seems a horrendous mark up though. And dodgy practices are dodgy practices, even if everyone does them.
Forgive me for asking this but what are the chances of MS releasing an upgraded XB1 sometime down the road? Has that ever been done with a console previously?
$28 x 90mil consoles = $2.5 billion
$28 is anything but "mere".
Problem is that MS spent, overall, more money and got lesser performance.
MS will redesign around DDR4 and restrict any performance difference to maintain compatibility.They did something similar with later 360s and faster edram. Yield processes will improve price of XBone APU, but the redesign will be more complicated than Sony's because of the esram.
Basically MS will be able to reduce silicon costs better than Sony, BUT not by much. And if you factor in Kinect, it will be negligible. Sony will always be tied to GDDR ram.
$28 x 90mil consoles = $2.5 billion
$28 is anything but "mere".
Problem is that MS spent, overall, more money and got lesser performance.
Distributor margin, retail margin, cost of packaging/shipping, transfer pricing tax, other misc.cost.
BoM doesn't tell the whole story.
the APU will drop in price faster for Sony - the chip is smaller so yields will already be higher. Plus the esram may make process shrinks more complex and lag behind PS4
I think neither have a huge advantage in terms of long-term cost reduction
The 32MB of embedded SRAM is costly, but SRAM scales well with smaller processes. Microsoft probably figures it can significantly cut down the die area of the eSRAM at 20nm and by 14/16nm it shouldnt be a problem at all.
$407 was the final figure.
This would imply that the price stays the same for 90m consoles worth if production which PS3 hasn't even hit yet and 6+ years. And it's also flawed to try and make a point of this when you would have to extrapolate things like revenue and profit too.$28 x 90mil consoles = $2.5 billion
$28 is anything but "mere".
Problem is that MS spent, overall, more money and got lesser performance.
Wasn't the PS4's use of 8 gigs of GDDR5 more of a by product of the release of higher density memory chips?
Theory: Microsoft went for the APU because the Xbox 360 was notorious for overheating and dying. An APU is less likely to have heat issues than a CPU + GPU. This would also explain why the Xbox One is fat compared to the PS4; Microsoft is paranoid about heat killing the hardware this time.
Time will tell if the PS4 is more vulnerable to overheating than the Xbox One.
APU is a bad choice for any console.