Support NeoGAF

[Trimesh]

Electrical is different from electronic!
How does your equation apply to a GPU?? Where did you factor the number of compute units in your equation? Doesn't Voltage increase along with the number of CUs? Doesn't Capacitance too? Isn't the increase in CUs bigger than the frequency increase????? Wouldn't XSX's polynomial increase be bigger than PS5? And again, electrical is different from electronic

Well, at least where I live the degree is called "Master of Science in Electrical Engineering", despite the fact that the course is overwhelmingly focused on electronics. Maybe your country is different, but here the only qualifications that you can get that are specifically called "electronics" are vocational ones.

I was simply taking exception to the claim that a smaller but higher clocked chip can't take more power than a larger but lower clocked one - because it's just not true.

As for the polynomial, that's something you would have to determine experimentally - if you can hold V constant (say because the clock is relatively low for the process) then it will contain only first-order terms since it's basically a factor of the reactance of the device gates at the frequency they are expected to transition at.

The problem is that this may not be the case - each gate input effectively contains an RC network where the R is formed by the Rds(on) of the drive FET and C is determined by the gate capacitance - with a given gate threshold voltage (determined by the process) as the clock increases you eventually reach the point where the voltage can't rise to the threshold voltage in time, and the device can no longer work. This can be addressed by turning up the supply voltage (since the higher voltage allows more charge to be pushed though the FET in a unit time) - but at this point the x^2 term starts to kick in and the power increases drastically.

Again, I have no idea if this is or will be the case with the PS5 - but claiming "it can't happen" is simply factually wrong.

 

[K.N.W.]

Elaborate on how it could be otherwise? Are you trolling or what? it could be otherwise by simply being otherwise. So at this point you've said maybe im upset you didnt use "i think" which would imply what youre saying isnt to be considered a fact but then you want me to explain how what you said isnt a fact? Youre speculating, thats my point. Theres no way to know what they will do. and please dont take it as an attack, it wasnt meant as one. Just a disagreement

Not trolling, I always use words that explicate that what I'm saying is just my thought, I forgot to use them this time, and I'm not used to be in that position. Now, if I might ask, what you think the next Microsoft console business model could be ? The Xbox One family was their first console to earn money, and it was the first one not being sold at loss. Their Software sales are shrinking, and they are pushing for Game Pass and Windows/Xbox Store (Play Anywhere), I see them more fitly not losing much money on consoles so their hard earned cash money comes easily. Pushing an underpriced console didn't work even for Sony with PS3, their losses on each PS4 were minor and relegated to the first year, it doesn't really work out in the end(usually). Whatever the guys at PS and XB try to do has to be approved by "Heads" and Shareholders, and I'm not sure about them doing the Harakiri move, especially Microsoft. I think.

 

[Rightisright]

So are you just trying to convince everyone or are you trying to have a discussion. Which is it?

I'm not sure how saying a higher speed SSD is going to be more expensive than one half the speed is an issue for you. I dont need to convince anyone of it. Whether you believe it or not wont change the cost of the SSD to Sony.

 

[joe_zazen]

Not remotely similar one is over 20% faster clock that takes a ton of voltage hence the variable clocks. That thing is going to run hot as the sun at full blast and draw voltage like crazy. This is not a few percent this is a other universe in GPU clocks.

we need to wait on rdna2 and 7+ infos. AMD might have some really speedy cards this holiday. That is why github infos weren’t accurate, we might see some 3ghz gpus Rdna2.

 

[darkinstinct]

we need to wait on rdna2 and 7+ infos. AMD might have some really speedy cards this holiday. That is why github infos weren’t accurate, we might see some 3ghz gpus Rdna2.

LOL, no we won't.

 

[FranXico]

PlayStation is propping up Sony. You think they can afford to take one of their only profit streams and reduce that? Sony NEEDS that profit to survive. MS could wipe its ass with the PlayStation profit. The gulf between the two companies is massive as far as money and profit goes. Microsoft has more cash reserves than any other company in the US. They have 136 billion sitting in the bank.

My bully is bigger than your bully!

Love this corporate passion.

 

[joe_zazen]

LOL, no we won't.

we had nvidia gpus break 3 GHz in 2016.

 

[SaucyJack]

What an obnoxious way to reply to someone.

Similarly, this:



...is not an ‘incorrect’ statement. Your position is that Sony had a good quarter, and that somehow invalidates the titanic difference between an American mega-corp with near limitless resources, and one that was hawking off parts of itself a few years ago just to survive?

Another one incorrectly conflating the financial muscle of the American mega-corp with the resources available to the Xbox division. The idea that they will be eating massive losses on a console to buy market share does not fit with the behaviour of the American mega-corp.

Xbox is constrained by whatever internal hurdles Microsoft Corp chooses to apply. They do not have near limitless resources. Sure they are capable of major acquisitions (see Mojang) but they will have to demonstrate ROI to the group on those. Ultimately Xbox needs to make a profit that justifies the investment on that division, otherwise it will be sold or demised.

 

[joe_zazen]

My bully is bigger than your bully!

Love this corporate passion.

There are reasons Microsoft doesn't just kill its competition outright overnight, which they could do any of the markets they are in. They have to proceed slowly or regulators will get pissed. yes, Microsoft has all the advantages here, but they wont be giving away they consoles and if they are looking to kill PLayStation, you’ll need to wait a decade.

 

[hyperbertha]

If Sony doesn’t have a price advantage, I have to kind of wonder, ‘What was the point?’.

At $100 less or so, they look great. Similar levels of capability at a more mainstream price, and with a really cool possible no-loading feature.

At the same price, they just look underpowered. Getting rid of six-second load times on the Xbox One X, if that’s indeed what we can expect, isn’t enough to balance the scales against less capable hardware.

My thinking is that what we’ve seen on the hardware front matches the PS4 Pro development ideology pretty well, in terms of delivering what customers expect with smart engineering decisions and cheaper components, and I would be surprised to not see that reflected in the price tag.

But you're wrongly assuming getting rid of load times is the only thing we can expect. Xbox, marketing wise, did it right. Higher flops, so everybody instantly concludes more power. Sony's fault was not making its advantages with the SSD clearer to the mainstream audience. Its where they decided to focus on. And they failed to make it clear WHY they did this, hence the confusion.

 

[darkinstinct]

we had nvidia gpus break 3 GHz in 2016.

Yeah, while being cooled with liquid nitrogen.

 

[joe_zazen]

Yeah, while being cooled with liquid nitrogen.

& maybe this year will be AMD’s turn

 

[Allandor]

Well, cost of the APU is a thing. Yes the xbox chip is bigger, but lower clocked. The PS5 chip is smaller (well at least we assume that it is) but the clock rate is higher. This means wrose yields for the sony apu. This could mean that the xbox apu and the ps5 apu come at the same price because lower clocked chips have less yield problems.

The SSD on the other side, well to get an SSD like in PS5 with ~1TB you currently have to pay >$500. And even there is the problem that it can't hold a steady speed.

Heat is also something. PCIe4 so far is a really heat intensive on current mainboards (active cooling on the mainboards is a must). The bandwidth Microsoft chose is also reachable with PCIe3 which is not that hot.

I really get the feeling the PS5 could get really loud, or choose a much bigger formfactor than even first PS3s.

we had nvidia gpus break 3 GHz in 2016.

???
There was the CPU called Pentium 4 that was capable of reaching 5GHz with extensive cooling (and a big PSU) in ~200x. Does that have anything to do with the current CPUs or GPUs? -> NO

 

[K.N.W.]

Well, at least where I live the degree is called................

Not sleeping much got me on the rude side today, sorry, I forgot manners twice in this thread.
In some cases, yes it's true, there are even cards which draw the same power as newer, bigger-siliconed and faster-clocked ones, so it depends a lot on how a device is built. But, let me draw in an apples to oranges comparison, the 1080ti has higher clocks (on average) than the more powerful 2080ti, and 18% less CUDA cores, but it still consumes less power (about ~10% less, different than the ~30% gap in computational power, so yes, again it's non linear).
But we have the PS5 having 31% less compute units and using a frequency control system based on power draw to avoid heat, meanwhile XSX uses always the max frequency, so I believe XSX to have higher draw spikes, meanwhile the PS5 does it's best to avoid those, hence I believe XSX needs a beefier PSU, having 44% more silicon in the house.

 

[FranXico]

There are reasons Microsoft doesn't just kill its competition outright overnight, which they could do any of the markets they are in. They have to proceed slowly or regulators will get pissed. yes, Microsoft has all the advantages here, but they wont be giving away they consoles and if they are looking to kill PLayStation, you’ll need to wait a decade.

Indeed. What I think is that, sadly, a lot of the people who are so enthusiastically cheering for "underdog" Microsoft and hoping for them to gain control over this market have absolutely no idea of what would follow if/when they succeed.

 

[darkinstinct]

Not sleeping much got me on the rude side today, sorry, I forgot manners twice in this thread.
In some cases, yes it's true, there are even cards which draw the same power as newer, bigger-siliconed and faster-clocked ones, so it depends a lot on how a device is built. But, let me draw in an apples to oranges comparison, the 1080ti has higher clocks (on average) than the more powerful 2080ti, and 18% less CUDA cores, but it still consumes less power (about ~10% less, different than the ~30% gap in computational power, so yes, again it's non linear).
But we have the PS5 having 31% less compute units and using a frequency control system based on power draw to avoid heat, meanwhile XSX uses always the max frequency, so I believe XSX to have higher draw spikes, meanwhile the PS5 does it's best to avoid those, hence I believe XSX needs a beefier PSU, having 44% more silicon in the house.

You completely misunderstood the PS5. It's not build to avoid heat, it's built to always run at the max heat output. And it switches that budget between CPU and GPU. And no, higher clock rates equal higher power consumption. PS5 will without doubt have a more beefy PSU than the 315 Watt of XSX.

 

[Elios83]

I hear alot of people say they think the XSX will be $100 dearer than the PS5 because it's approx 2tflops more powerful.

I just don't see that at all.
So, both the XSX and PS5 will have the same fixed costs with a bluray drive, 16gb of GDDR6 RAM, power supply, plastic case, motherboard and manufacturing price.

The leaves a potential difference with the APU, SSD and cooling solution.
The XSX has an extra 16 compute units, which would add approx 20% size to the APU over the PS5. The average cost of an APU will be about $120-$140. So let's assume a 20% cost addition to MS of around $25.00 on the APU.

The PS5 has by far a more advanced SSD solution than the XSX, and that tech comes at a price. I would think, that the extra cost associated with the PS5s SSD would be at least $25.00, and possibly alot more. Just look at the cost that equiviant PC SSDs of that speed come in at.

Then there is the cooling solution. The PS5 GPU is going to generate more heat than the XSX GPU due to those clock speeds, and also add into that the extra heat the SSD will have. As such, you would expect the PS5 to need a more advanced cooling solution than the XSX, especially considering how MS has gone with a tower. If Sony go with a traditional console form factor like the PS4, then it will require even more efficient cooling than MS will need with their tower.

So all in all, I dont see any way that Sony is going to be able to sell the PS5 at a lower cost than the XSX, and may even be more expensive. Talk about being $100 cheaper are just fantasy.

Price is a function of many factors, including the internal target price around which they designed the system, how much losses they're ready to take to make sure sales are at the level they want and how they can cover those losses (subscriptions, game sales,etc).
Based on the specs Sony is certainly building a cheaper console than Microsoft.
The APU is much smaller with 36 vs 52 CUs, they have one memory controller less because of 256bit vs 320bit bus, they're using 8 chips of GDDR6 versus 10 chips used by Microsoft and while their SSD tech is twice the speed they're also cutting costs there with a sub 1TB size, they're probably going to have a more exotic cooling system but as the Bloomberg article explained it still is a really cheap component at a few dollars per unit. The components which effectively determine the cost of the system are three: APU, GDDR6, SSD.
Cerny stated by himself that they designed the console while being price conscious versus their target audience.
Is that going to translate into 399$? We won't know until they announce the price.
Maybe 449$ will be the ideal spot for them, in any case the price will be between 399$ and 499$.
It also seems based on leaks and some comments by ex-Microsoft employees that Microsoft has basically created their next gen strategy around the expectation of a 399$ 8-9Teraflops PS5 which they were supposed to sandwitch between a 499$ XSX at 12TF and 299$ 4TF Lockheart.
If PS5 is priced at 399$ then at 10.2TF and with a highly customized I/O system at twice the speed of their solution, it definetly would be a way more powerful device than what MS was expecting internally.
We'll find out in a few months, there's also to consider that what is happening in the world right now with covid19 has the potential to change the market landscape making things priced too high not really desirable with tons of unemployed people.
All these issues are probably being considered internally by both companies to determine the final price.

 

[K.N.W.]

It's not build to avoid heat, it's built to always run at the max heat

I made a timestamp for you:


"we run at essentially costant power and let the frequency vary based on the workload"
No, it aims mostly at constant power draw, so it should probably have less power spikes. Hence XSX PSU needs to account for those, since it's running at fixed frequency.

And no, higher clock rates equal higher power consumption. PS5 will without doubt have a more beefy PSU than the 315 Watt of XSX.

So now having less CUs, doesn't count in power draw?? It's running at higher frequency, but there are less components that draw electricty. I have a really bad feeling about your "PS5 having beefier PSU" prediction.....

 

[icerock]

You havent given a number of the price difference for the SSD, which will have the biggest cost factor. It will cost more than the XSXs, and will be a minimum of $25, maybe even more. You are talking a $300-$400 part on a PC.

I wrote in my OP that cost on storage is a wash out, even though it's difficult to gauge exactly due to different setup. What Sony are doing in regards to their storage setup isn't entirely unique, they are leveraging more lane for performance by using slower and smaller storage modules. MS on the other hand have gone for fewer but faster and bigger modules. Bigger storage modules don't necessarily come cheap. That figure of ~$25 has no basis in reality given what I've written, if they are spending more on SSD, that difference would be marginal, which also brings me to your next post.

If it was that easy and cheap to make a super fast SSD everyone including MS would have done it as well.
Make no mistake, that SSD is pretty high tech. In fact, Sony was beating out companies that specialize in making super fast SSD. I'm glad to see Sony push that tech, just as it's good to see them push the clocks on the GPU, I just dont think that outside of loading times it will make a difference.

Many of you are mistaking raw speed of SSD as a reason why it is so costly, reminds me of folks thinking an 8TF console would mean Sony save $100, when any savings on the APU would be tiny. What's making Sonys' SSD unique is not the actual setup of the storage drive, but rather the I/O customization they have done on the APU itself to leverage more performance out of SSD. This is the biggest differentiation between the two, MS are trying to tap into what Sony are doing at the silicon level with their API solutions.

Sony are 'pushing' SSD tech in regards to a console, no discreet SSD manufacturer has the luxury to design their drives to work with a specific I/O tool-set baked onto the CPU/GPU. And yet, you'll see in coming months SSD drives on the market whose raw speed will outperform Sonys. Sony's customization on the die is what's getting devs to sing its praises, not the actual raw speed performance. MS can attain that sort of raw speed performance even now if they want to sink in more money on the SSD.

My guess is they are both $499.
At this stage it looks like both Sony and MS are waiting for the other to put a price on their console.
And in reality, Sony can afforded to be $50 more expensive than the XSX. That won't hurt their sales, whereas MS cant afford to be more expensive than the PS5. So even if MS is $25 dearer, MS can easily match Sony's price.

MS aren't building two consoles to eat losses in excess of $100 for both, they most definitely are going to eat that on Lockhart. Doesn't make sense to under-cut/price-match Sony on their premium offering too. At the end of day, they are a business. There's a limited amount of money they can sink in.

To sum it up, BoM difference between the two consoles is ~$50 (mainly due to savings on APU and RAM), which is also reflected in the specs since they are very close. Unlike MS, Sony don't have the luxury of 2 SKUs. They know they are not going to be the cheapest console on the market, nor the strongest. Hence, PS5 becomes very price-sensitive. A ~$450 BOM puts them in a position of eating a small loss if they were to launch at $449 (which is where I think they will launch) but a cheaper Lockhart may force them to eat a bigger loss and launch at $399 which would make PS5 a really attractive proposition against both Lockhart and Series X.

 

[The Alien]

Keep in mind, for both MS and Sony, these BOMs dont include marketing, packaging, or shipping costs. So the per console cost is likely higher

Sony: I think it'll be $500 (that SSD cant be cheap). I thought itd be $400, but if that BOM is correct, I'm not sure they'd sell at a loss. A big loss could have a ripple effect throughout the gen for Sony.

XBox: $500. It wont be higher. If Microsoft wanted to be crazy aggressive, maybe (not likely) they could go lower.

 

[darkinstinct]

I made a timestamp for you:


"we run at essentially costant power and let the frequency vary based on the workload"
No, it aims mostly at constant power draw, so it should probably have less power spikes. Hence XSX PSU needs to account for those, since it's running at fixed frequency.

So now having less CUs, doesn't count in power draw?? It's running at higher frequency, but there are less components that draw electricty. I have a really bad feeling about your "PS5 having beefier PSU" prediction.....

Where do you think heat is coming from? It's coming from electricity. So if they run at a constant power draw, that means they are running at a constant heat output. That's why they talk about thermal budgets.

 

[Genx3]

Even at $500 both MS and Sony would be losing money.
These consoles likely have BOM's around $530 - $600.
Fast GDDR6, fast SSD's and 7NM enhanced processes are expensive.
Only question is whether Sony and MS are willing to sell at $500.

 

[Clear]

Why would anyone think that MS is going to want to eat a loss on their premium SKU?

It makes no business sense, at all. If anything the way they are positioning it as the high-end way to pay Xbox software, they'll push RRP out a bit in order to get maximum revenue from the tech hardcore and the platform loyalists.

Still saying $500-$550.

 

[darkinstinct]

Why would anyone think that MS is going to want to eat a loss on their premium SKU?

It makes no business sense, at all. If anything the way they are positioning it as the high-end way to pay Xbox software, they'll push RRP out a bit in order to get maximum revenue from the tech hardcore and the platform loyalists.

Still saying $500-$550.

That high end SKU is targeting the most profitable piece of the market. They will sell much more than the 11 games in seven years on a PS4, so they can take a higher loss per unit. And again, Spencer said they will not be out of position with price or power. They will pricematch PS5.

 

[darkinstinct]

Even at $500 both MS and Sony would be losing money.
These consoles likely have BOM's around $530 - $600.
Fast GDDR6, fast SSD's and 7NM enhanced processes are expensive.
Only question is whether Sony and MS are willing to sell at $500.

You are making no sense. Electronics prices don't go up, you just get more for it. 16 GB of GDDR6 in late 2020 should be pretty much the same cost as 8 GB GDDR5 in late 2013. Same thing for nodes, while 7nm is more expensive than 14 nm, it's a process. 14 nm isn't as expensive today as it was when it was new. Yes, SSDs are an additional cost vs. current gen consoles. They are roughly two times as expensive, with a BOM of $70 vs. $35 back in 2013. But that's really the only part that is more expensive. Add their cost to the BOM of a PS4 at launch ($380) and you are very close to where PS5 ends up being. They have BOMs of slightly over $400, not anywhere close to $530 to $600. Jesus.

 

[Ascend]

"we run at essentially costant power and let the frequency vary based on the workload"
No, it aims mostly at constant power draw, so it should probably have less power spikes. Hence XSX PSU needs to account for those, since it's running at fixed frequency.

I still find the 'constant power' statement suspect. Power consumption and heat are directly proportionate to each other. Not only is there zero need to keep constant power on an idle system, it is extremely inefficient to do so. Unless they are referring to power as strictly being amperage, and they only vary the voltage and the frequency.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

PlayStation is propping up Sony. You think they can afford to take one of their only profit streams and reduce that? Sony NEEDS that profit to survive. MS could wipe its ass with the PlayStation profit. The gulf between the two companies is massive as far as money and profit goes. Microsoft has more cash reserves than any other company in the US. They have 136 billion sitting in the bank.

That would actually be an indictment on Microsoft because that implies that they spend their money extremely inefficiently.

 

[Clear]

That high end SKU is targeting the most profitable piece of the market. They will sell much more than the 11 games in seven years on a PS4, so they can take a higher loss per unit. And again, Spencer said they will not be out of position with price or power. They will pricematch PS5.

Untrue. Its about ecosystem, not individual SKUs. Taking a hit on their premier hardware offering gains nothing and puts additional pressure on the rest of the console and service line-up to offer equivalent or better value.

If this gen transition was a clean, hard break from the past it'd make some sense to take the hit, but its not and it doesn't. The reality is that there's plenty of time for Sony and MS to jockey for position because the situation initially is going to be not dissimilar to the mid-gen refreshes.

 

[Genx3]

You are making no sense. Electronics prices don't go up, you just get more for it. 16 GB of GDDR6 in late 2020 should be pretty much the same cost as 8 GB GDDR5 in late 2013. Same thing for nodes, while 7nm is more expensive than 14 nm, it's a process. 14 nm isn't as expensive today as it was when it was new. Yes, SSDs are an additional cost vs. current gen consoles. They are roughly two times as expensive, with a BOM of $70 vs. $35 back in 2013. But that's really the only part that is more expensive. Add their cost to the BOM of a PS4 at launch ($380) and you are very close to where PS5 ends up being. They have BOMs of slightly over $400, not anywhere close to $530 to $600. Jesus.

7NM enhanced is more expensive than 16NM was in 2013.
SSD's are more than 4 times as expensive as hdd's of the same size.
Split motherboard is also expensive as is the advanced cooling in these consoles.
Lets not even get into the poor yields Sony are going to get out of a GPU clocked at 2.2 Ghz.
Lets not forget XB1X was selling at a small loss at $500 when it launched.
All facts.

 

[Vawn]

Xbox is like 1.8 TF more, while PS5 is more than twice as fast with its SSD. They'll likely be priced the same.

The real question is what the eBay prices will be, as these will probably be extremely limited the first 12 months.

 

[Genx3]

I still find the 'constant power' statement suspect. Power consumption and heat are directly proportionate to each other. Not only is there zero need to keep constant power on an idle system, it is extremely inefficient to do so. Unless they are referring to power as strictly being amperage, and they only vary the voltage and the frequency.

XSX will likely have several different power states just like all other Xbox consoles.
What MS means by constant power is if the game needs to run at its full capacity the whole time it can.

 

[LordKasual]

it will absolutely be cheaper. Sony has sold at a loss before.

All evidence points to Sony targeting a lower pricepoint to begin with.

So i highly doubt they'd bother DELIBERATELY designing a weaker console that is comparable in cost to the XSX.

 

[Ascend]

XSX will likely have several different power states just like all other Xbox consoles.
What MS means by constant power is if the game needs to run at its full capacity the whole time it can.

I was referring to the PS5. MS never claimed a constant power delivery. They claimed constant clocks and thus constant performance. Sony is claiming constant power and variable performance, but variable in a predictable way.

 

[SmokSmog]

I made a timestamp for you:


"we run at essentially costant power and let the frequency vary based on the workload"
No, it aims mostly at constant power draw, so it should probably have less power spikes. Hence XSX PSU needs to account for those, since it's running at fixed frequency.

So now having less CUs, doesn't count in power draw?? It's running at higher frequency, but there are less components that draw electricty. I have a really bad feeling about your "PS5 having beefier PSU" prediction.....

PS5 will have probably same 315W power supply.

36cu 1800mhz 1V vcore vs 36cu 2200mhz 1.2V

2.2GHZ gpu would draw probaly additional 50% more power compared with 1.8ghz


0.35V+ (or 30% if you like) and cpu draws 2x more power

 

[BattleScar]

Sony also has to buy the fastest wafer to run 2.23ghz, they will suffer non-speedy dies costs too.

Imo a big mistake Mark Sony chose high speeds to recover loss PR, when he fucked up their PR already with small die strategy.

All early leaks point to 9.2tflops, 2Ghz dies.

That's not how it works.

 

[SmokSmog]

That's not how it works.

You are right, they would need to cram high voltage to meet the requirements of stable 2230mhz for almost every chip.

 

[BattleScar]

You are right, they would need to cram high voltage to meet the requirements of stable 2230mhz for almost every chip.

Yeah, they probably will need high voltages to reach higher frequencies.

We don't know what the voltage characteristics for RDNA 2 are though. Is it gonna be similar to RDNA1? Or is it going to be like Kepler to Maxwell, where they managed to get a significant uplift in clock frequencies without having to crank the voltages/power into space.

 

[SmokSmog]

Yeah, they probably will need high voltages to reach higher frequencies.

We don't know what the voltage characteristics for RDNA 2 are though. Is it gonna be similar to RDNA1? Or is it going to be like Kepler to Maxwell, where they managed to get a significant uplift in clock frequencies without having to crank the voltages/power into space.

Navi10 has 1.2V vcore and you need 1.2V to manualy oc it in 2100-2150mhz range (gpu draws 250W by itself after oc) with good cooling. If ps5 is on refined process they would still need at last 1.2V for stable 2230mhz for almost all chips.

AMD set Navi 10 at 1.2V for 1800-2000mhz stock clocks.

 

[martino]

Where do you think heat is coming from? It's coming from electricity. So if they run at a constant power draw, that means they are running at a constant heat output. That's why they talk about thermal budgets.

not really the workload counts too.

 

[it_wasn't_me]

I hear alot of people say they think the XSX will be $100 dearer than the PS5 because it's approx 2tflops more powerful.

I just don't see that at all.
So, both the XSX and PS5 will have the same fixed costs with a bluray drive, 16gb of GDDR6 RAM, power supply, plastic case, motherboard and manufacturing price.

The leaves a potential difference with the APU, SSD and cooling solution.
The XSX has an extra 16 compute units, which would add approx 20% size to the APU over the PS5. The average cost of an APU will be about $120-$140. So let's assume a 20% cost addition to MS of around $25.00 on the APU.

The PS5 has by far a more advanced SSD solution than the XSX, and that tech comes at a price. I would think, that the extra cost associated with the PS5s SSD would be at least $25.00, and possibly alot more. Just look at the cost that equiviant PC SSDs of that speed come in at.

Then there is the cooling solution. The PS5 GPU is going to generate more heat than the XSX GPU due to those clock speeds, and also add into that the extra heat the SSD will have. As such, you would expect the PS5 to need a more advanced cooling solution than the XSX, especially considering how MS has gone with a tower. If Sony go with a traditional console form factor like the PS4, then it will require even more efficient cooling than MS will need with their tower.

So all in all, I dont see any way that Sony is going to be able to sell the PS5 at a lower cost than the XSX, and may even be more expensive. Talk about being $100 cheaper are just fantasy.

You forgot what Zhuge said, though. XSX has higher BOM than PS5. RAM is cheaper in PS5 surely, APU is also cheaper in PS5. I'll bet that PS5 will be cheaper than XSX. Min.50 Max. 100$ in price difference. Btw. plus Sony produces some of their own materials as well ( cooling, some SSD stuff ).

 

[DESTROYA]

I still think the XsX will still be more expensive than the PS5. Why you ask?
I‘m just guessing like everyone else.

 

[Tarkus98]

I certainly have no clue what each company received as far as their material contracts cost. They could be wildly different.
I believe one of the biggest factors will be how quickly each company can reduce future costs. This will help determine how much up front risk each are willing to take.
I am also interested to find out the cost of Sony’s new controller is going to be with its advanced haptic feedback tech and anything else they may have added that has not been revealed as yet.
Anyway, in my opinion I can see the ps5 coming in at $50 below the Series X with each company taking minimal losses initially.

 

[Genx3]

Forget it.

 

[Rightisright]

That would actually be an indictment on Microsoft because that implies that they spend their money extremely inefficiently.

Its pretty obvious which company has a better handle of how they invest their money. One has lots of it, and the other doesn't have much.

 

[Rightisright]

You forgot what Zhuge said, though. XSX has higher BOM than PS5. RAM is cheaper in PS5 surely, APU is also cheaper in PS5. I'll bet that PS5 will be cheaper than XSX. Min.50 Max. 100$ in price difference. Btw. plus Sony produces some of their own materials as well ( cooling, some SSD stuff ).

I think they are neck and neck cost wise, and his tweets show that.
His high end would be allowing price blowouts on RAM, issues with 7+nm yields etc.

 

[Rightisright]

PS5 will have probably same 315W power supply.

36cu 1800mhz 1V vcore vs 36cu 2200mhz 1.2V

2.2GHZ gpu would draw probaly additional 50% more power compared with 1.8ghz


0.35V+ (or 30% if you like) and cpu draws 2x more power

Yep, Sony and MS will be on the same footing with power.
Reality is Sony found themselves in a bad spot by using 36CUs. Some have said it was to get back compat with PS4 titles easier, while others have said that they were going to originally launch in 2019.
Either way, it's safe to assume that having such a small CU count and extreme high clocks which are subject to variability would not have been their preferred outcome unless their was an issue as others have alluded to.

 

[Deto]

Sony uses DRAM for their SSD controller (that's why it can be so fast), Microsoft doesn't. DRAM prices exploded this year.

SRAM

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Its pretty obvious which company has a better handle of how they invest their money. One has lots of it, and the other doesn't have much.

So why hasn't that investment translated to better market performance?

 

[Rightisright]

So why hasn't that investment translated to better market performance?

Because that takes time. It takes years to build a good reputation, and hours to destroy that reputation.
Take the studio aquisitions. Half of their games were still released on PS4 due to previous publishing deals (Outer Worlds, We Happy Few, Psychonauts 2), and game development cycles takes years. You won't see the fruits of this for a couple more years, but when you have exclusives from Playground, The Inititive, NT, Obsidien etc, all with massive increases in budgets and resources it will be a different playing field.
While I still expect Sony to sell more consoles, I also expect MS to sell alot more next gen than last.
If MS can sell 80 million XSX, that's a win and a successful platform, even if Sony sell 100 million PS5s.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Because that takes time. It takes years to build a good reputation, and hours to destroy that reputation.
Take the studio aquisitions. Half of their games were still released on PS4 due to previous publishing deals (Outer Worlds, We Happy Few, Psychonauts 2), and game development cycles takes years. You won't see the fruits of this for a couple more years, but when you have exclusives from Playground, The Inititive, NT, Obsidien etc, all with massive increases in budgets and resources it will be a different playing field.
While I still expect Sony to sell more consoles, I also expect MS to sell alot more next gen than last.
If MS can sell 80 million XSX, that's a win and a successful platform, even if Sony sell 100 million PS5s.

You're basically proving my point. Microsoft has always had more money in the bank than Sony, but they never capitalized on it. And it's not only until now that they're getting their shit together. Even then, there is uncertainty because just because your throw more money at development, that doesn't automatically make the games good. Most of Microsoft's 1st party studios need to establish a reputation first while most of Sony's studios have already established their reputations. The market isn't going to wait and throwing more money doesn't magically dilate time.

In addition, citing Microsoft's cash reserves is irrelevant since the company works on a division structure whereas Playstation is subsidiary. You would have a point if Xbox is a subsidiary and those cash reserves is the subsidiary's. However, that is not the case.