Support NeoGAF

[Roronoa Zoro]

But very few people would buy a hypothetical $400 Xbox One X now and then buy another console less than a year later. It's not in the interests of either MS or Sony to discount at the moment because they would much rather people buy their next-generation products.

People on sites like this who are way more likely to be gaming enthusiasts tend to lose sight of the fact that for most people these things are simply toys, and most people have a limited budget for toys.

Or they'd not buy the next gen system for years once it's discounted. But they'd be in your ecosystem and your next gen system is BC whenever they decide to jump. Besides I was talking making it $400 at launch in 2017

 

[longdi]

I hate how there's so many threads with titles suggesting analysis inside, but all you find is speculation.

The Series X has more power because their GPU die is larger. That means less chips on each wafer, and it makes the large proportion of nonfunctional dies on each wafer that much more costly. These consoles are not going to cost the same to make.

The myth that Xbox has a blank check from Microsoft was shattered last generation when they shipped a system that was both weaker and more expensive. I won't rule it out, but I would be very surprised if they eat such a huge loss to achieve price parity.

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.

 

[Deeper Underground]

I hate how there's so many threads with titles suggesting analysis inside, but all you find is speculation.

The Series X has more power because their GPU die is larger. That means less chips on each wafer, and it makes the large proportion of nonfunctional dies on each wafer that much more costly. These consoles are not going to cost the same to make.

The myth that Xbox has a blank check from Microsoft was shattered last generation when they shipped a system that was both weaker and more expensive. I won't rule it out, but I would be very surprised if they eat such a huge loss to achieve price parity.

Someone with some intelligence in here. If MS was so worried about the price of XSX, Lockhart would never even be a thing. It’s obvious if Lockhart is the entry console for next gen, it allows MS to price XSX at a MSRP that isn’t going to hurt them too badly. The only issue is if Sony sells the PS5 at $399-449. That middle ground is generally where the public will fall into.

 

[Bolivar687]

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 for recover some PR, when he fucked up their PR already with small die strategy.

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

 

[K.N.W.]

I don't think Sony's SSD is that much expensive: they aren't using an SSD to start with. They chose to go with 12 flash chips tied directly to the I/O interface, meanwhile XB has a full fledged drive with less chips, meaning that Sony is paying less per chip due to:
1) Buying SSD parts instead of a full product
2)Sony is ordering more chips, and might probably get a lower price

Also, I think you are underestimating the size difference between the two APUs. And then, even the power supply in the X should be more powerful, having to feed a bigger GPU which doesn't regulate power draw.

I think there's no way PS5 costs as much as XSX.

 

[longdi]

I don't think Sony's SSD is that much expensive: they aren't using an SSD to start with. They chose to go with 12 flash chips tied directly to the I/O interface, meanwhile XB has a full fledged drive with less chips, meaning that Sony is paying less per chip due to:
1) Buying SSD parts instead of a full product
2)Sony is ordering more chips, and might probably get a lower price

Also, I think you are underestimating the size difference between the two APUs. And then, even the power supply in the X should be more powerful, having to feed a bigger GPU which doesn't regulate power draw.

I think there's no way PS5 costs as much as XSX.

In terms of power, 2.23ghz gpu and higher speed ssd lanes, will break that thought.
2.23ghz is unheard for GPU, and current ones if clocked to >2ghz, will break the 'normal' power curves.
Sony will need more Pcie4.0 lanes for their storage, and when AMD had to return to Pcie3.0 in their latest Zen2 laptops, you know something is up.

I wont be surprise if PS5 uses more power than Series X. (adding more bom in the form of power supply!)

Consoles success is also down to engineering choices.
Let see if Mark Sony chose wisely this time.
Feels dire atm imo lolz.

 

[K.N.W.]

I wont be surprise if PS5 uses more power than Series X. (adding more bom in the form of power supply!)

No. There's almost no way a bigger Die, with more transistors, running at similar frequencies, draws more power.
And SSDs have never had such high power draws. I might suggest you to do some Electronic Engineering Exams before speaking. No way power draw is higher on PS5, as any machine ever, GPU is the king of electricity hunger.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Sony tends to be more cost effective with their hardware.

I suspect we will see around a $50 gap. Doubtful there will be $100 difference unless Sony is going to take a massive loss, which I think they don't care to do. They'd likely rather give MS some marketshare instead and try and win the Xbox consumer over time with their 1st party games.

 

[Max_Po]

$2,000 Brazilian

excluding tax... get fukt !!!!

 

[magnumpy]

it takes two to tango like that. you have to have one console that's more expensive and one that's cheaper. unless they both cost the same, which would be an odd coincidence imo

of course that's leaving out nintendo, but who cares about them anyway

 

[quest]

No. There's no way a bigger Die, with more transistors, running at similar frequencies, draws more power.
And SSDs have never such high power draws. I might suggest you to do some Electronic Engineering Exams before speaking. No way power draw is higher on PS5, as any machine ever, GPU is the king of electricity hunger.

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.

 

[K.N.W.]

Also, Microsoft lost a ton on money on both Xbox and XBOX 360 which were sold at loss (and didn't make any money in the end), meanwhile Yusuf Mehdi declared XB1 was profitable from the start, and Phil Spencer (ambigously) declared that XB1X wasn't making any profit, but later added that he never meant it was sold at loss. So, lesson learned, they are not willing to lose money on consoles again. I don't understand why people think Microsoft is willing to lose money again just because they are the bigger company: if you don't sell that much software, you have no reason to burn money on machines, they are Microsoft not Santa Claus.

EDIT: Someone correctly pointed that this is just my speculation. Could probably be true, but it may not.

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.

That's what you think. But still, PS5 has many less compute units, you are not minding that DIE is bigger in XSX with fixed clocks, no control system to reduce the heating, thus increasing electrical resistance, hence voltages, and so affecting power draw in the end. How much do you know about electronics? Have you seen how the latest flagship GPUs use variable clocks? Microsoft's fixed clocks are the ones that will get crazy hungry for power. And I don't wanna even comment about someone pointing the lesser GPU as power hungry.

 

[wolffy71]

Also, Microsoft lost a ton on money on both Xbox and XBOX 360 which were sold at loss (and didn't make any money in the end), meanwhile Yusuf Mehdi declared XB1 was profitable from the start, and Phil Spencer (ambigously) declared that XB1X wasn't making any profit, but later added that he never meant it was sold at loss. So, lesson learned, they are not willing to lose money on consoles again. I don't understand why people think Microsoft is willing to lose money again just because they are the bigger company: if you don't sell that much software, you have no reason to burn money on machines, they are Microsoft not Santa Claus.

None of what you posted proves your point, that they are not willing to sell at a loss, in the least.

 

[Kenpachii]

That SSD aint coming cheap

 

[Imtjnotu]

So what about the more expensive SSD?

The ssd cost will be the same as the XSX. It's just using 12 lanes for data. The expensive part will be the custom I/O bridge. Apu should be on the ps5 but the custom controller will make up the cost.




If the rumor about the ps5 Bom being $459 than I see a $399-449 ps5 and a $500 Xbox

 

[longdi]

That SSD aint coming cheap

Sony had to put custom logic in PS5 apu as shown in their gdc slides. So that grows their size and bom.

Ultimately, having good i/O is good. But how much difference will that make over a more 'standard' solution? Even Sony is cost constrained at only 890gb. More space for SSD, the faster they run!

If it is just 3-5s of extra load times, what is the point?

We go from 1 min load times to 8s load times to 3s load times, that last lap is not worth to sacrifice RAW compute POWER. It is about choices leading to success.

 

[K.N.W.]

None of what you posted proves your point, that they are not willing to sell at a loss, in the least.

So, them not selling the last two console at loss is no indication of them behaving again that way? Why? Elaborate, you are the one not making any point at all.

 

[McRazzle]

XBOX Series X's modular design should allow the manufacturing to be completely automated, something Digital Foundry mentioned themselves.
Fully automated might mean the XSX could be manufactured in the countries/region it's sold in, such as the rumors that the XSX is being manufactured in the U.S. and/or Mexico.
Microsoft would be able to save cost from the automation, but they could also save cost from not having to pay import tariffs and overseas shipping.

 

[Mendou]

And I just hate to think of what they will charge us here in Australia.

The economy right now is around $1 AUD = $0.60 USD, and that's assuming it doesn't continue going lower these coming months. The Xbox Series X at $500 USD would cost $833.33 AUD without GST. A $600 USD console like some are rumouring would cost $1000 AUD without GST.

 

[longdi]

XBOX Series X's modular design should allow the manufacturing to be completely automated, something Digital Foundry mentioned themselves.
Fully automated might mean the XSX could be manufactured in the countries/region it's sold in, such as the rumors that the XSX is being manufactured in the U.S. and/or Mexico.
Microsoft would be able to save cost from the automation, but they could also save cost from not having to pay import tariffs and overseas shipping.

What a beast. Fully thought out designs through the whole chain

 

[grfunkulus]

So that means he's wrong by being up front about his console allegiance? You can own (and love) all three major consoles, and a gaming pc that trumps the combined power of all three, and still think Sony screwed the pooch here.

Not a stretch so hypothesize (and yes, I know, you hate that word) that Sony's movements have been INCREDIBLY reactionary here. Also, you conveniently left out the substantial cost difference in the SSDs, so who's playing console fanboy warrior now?

All I care about is seeing the prices, and if Sony can justify theirs being within $50 of the Series X when they're at that much of a *potential power deficit (because who says MS doesn't unlock variable frequency down the line via software update?...they CLEARLY baited Sony when they carefully emphasized in press releases before the Sony reveal that everything on their console was locked). It was a deliberate power play to say 'hey, we've got the more powerful console on paper AND in practice, and we don't have to rely on theoretical maximums that depend on ideal situations to approach parity'.

The limited number of first party exclusives that properly utilize the 'next gen' concepts that Sony is touting could, or could not, end up being the key selling point. But Sony isn't going to force third party devs to ship games with the PS5 SSD in mind when those games need to be ported to PCs with 5400rpm drives. If I'm playing non-1st party 65% of the time and want the superior experience, am I really going to mind paying $50 more over the 7 year life cycle? If Sony can somehow pull off launching a full $100 less in this economic climate, then they're not playing the front runner. A hungry Sony is a good Sony but I somehow doubt that's what we'll see here. Time will tell.

 

[ZywyPL]

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.

But PS5 has a ton of custom silicon related to the SSD, plus Tempest Audio chip, and both don't come for free. I expect both consoles to have similarly sized APUs, hence cost exactly the same. Just as in current generation, where XB1 had lesser CUs, but added ESRAM, and as a result APUs for bot cost almost exactly the same.

I really love when many folks here say that PS5 has this and that custom solutions build into the chip, but it's gonna be cheaper simply because it's weaker, it just doesn't work like that, at all, size completely determines the cost, XBX APU is confirmed to be 360mm, so even slightly lesser than X1X APU, we don't know PS5 APU size yet, but once it's revealed the situation will be crystal clear.

As for other components, I expect them to cost more or less the same, as the specs are more or less the same. There is a difference between the SSDs, but it's hard to not to believe that PS5 SSD is cut down to only 825MB exactly due to cost saving

The biggest possible difference I see is in the controllers, with DS5 most likely being more expensive, just by the build-in batteries, not to mention other tech like haptic feedback.

 

[Rightisright]

1. You have a problem with how I speak to someone? Put me on ignore or stop whining.

2. You argument boils down to “American company warchest, Japanese company no money”. Allow me to stop this dialogue before it even starts. Near limitless resources LOL. I guess that’s why Nadella had to basically convince the MS board that the Xbox division was worth keeping after the mass amounts of cash they were losing, but I’m not surprised you forgot to tell that part. In any case, you failed to address the fact that Sony’s financial state is the exact opposite of what it was in 2013 and stating that Sony is not in any position to sell the PS5 for $399 is literally an incorrect statement. Just because you don’t believe it, doesn’t make it not true.



Once again, false. We already have the statistics. Day one adopters spent on average $1100 in the first year of the PS4’s lifespan. The average PS4 owner has spent $700 over its lifetime. Not to mention the money printer that Sony has in PSN with digital sales and services and is only gaining momentum into the next gen. So please tell me where Sony “needs” this money, and the gaming division is “propping up Sony”? Have you actually read a financial report? Do you not know that Sony is one of the biggest semiconductor manufacturers in the world? Did you know that Sony’s financial services are widely used around the world? Did you not know that Sony’s lenses have been used in iPhones for years and just last year could not keep up with demand? It would help if some of you actually did research before making such cocksure statements and looking foolish.

If anyone is looking foolish its you.
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.

Sony's stock swoons amid worries its portfolio 'is in trouble'

Sony's stock was sent plummeting around 8 percent on Monday after the company cut its revenue outlook for the fiscal year.

www.google.com

 

[Trainsmove]

So what about the more expensive SSD?

1.APU $xx.xx PS5 is cheaper
Larger the chip higher the cost.
2.RAM $xx.xx
fixed cost
3.HD/SSD$xx.xx
Fixed cost
4. Cooling solution$xx.xx
Hotter higher cost.

 

[Rightisright]

The ssd cost will be the same as the XSX. It's just using 12 lanes for data. The expensive part will be the custom I/O bridge. Apu should be on the ps5 but the custom controller will make up the cost.




If the rumor about the ps5 Bom being $459 than I see a $399-449 ps5 and a $500 Xbox

If only everyone else in the game knew it doesnt cost anything more to make a SSD twice as fast. Think of all the money these companies could have saved.

 

[Rightisright]

1.APU $xx.xx PS5 is cheaper
Larger the chip higher the cost.
2.RAM $xx.xx
fixed cost
3.HD/SSD$xx.xx
Fixed cost
4. Cooling solution$xx.xx
Hotter higher cost.

A SSD running at twice the speed is on no planet going to cost the same.

 

[Imtjnotu]

A SSD running at twice the speed is on no planet going to cost the same.

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

 

[longdi]

If anyone is looking foolish its you.
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.

Yes. Even when talking financial strengths, MS need not just buy exclusives or take a bom loss.

They can channel these powers from the inception as seen. Hire the best persons, give them time and resources, think of everything, do everything. The transformation from Kinnect to Series X is startling but time consuming! MS can foot the bills.

If and should Series X win over core gamers and MS run away next gen, this template of slow brewing success will be copied in the next next gens.

So far it is looking good, even i a Sony fan, got bend over by the Series X master plan. I was the harshest Phil critic, so hats off to team Xbox, especially beardguy!

 

[Alphagear]

Basically this.

Sony chose customed SSD parts and 3D audio
MS chose standard SSD but better compute power.

Time will tell who chose wiser. I betting MS wins this turn. They have been so clear with everything

Win what? Most powerful console war?

Going by that logic, I guess Microsoft have won every generation


OG XBOX beat PS2
Xbox 360 beat PS3
X1X beat Ps4 pro
Xsx beat ps5

Barring half a generation this current generation, Microsoft have always had the more powerful console. Their issue is software not hardware.

 

[Kise Ryota]

That difference might not sound much but remember every additional $10 they eat on BOM cost them $1B for every $10m units sold.

100m

 

[Three]

So what about the more expensive SSD?

What on a BOM makes the SSD more expensive?

 

[Deeper Underground]

If anyone is looking foolish its you.
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.

Sony's stock swoons amid worries its portfolio 'is in trouble'

Sony's stock was sent plummeting around 8 percent on Monday after the company cut its revenue outlook for the fiscal year.

www.google.com

LOL That was from a year ago. Also, MS as a whole obviously makes more money, too bad investors have brought up multiple times that Xbox is a money sink and it was Nadella who had to convince the company that it was even viable to keep them around. You Xbox fans keep forgetting about that part. I really wish people would stop with this ridiculous notion that MS would just give Nadella and Spencer a blank check and say “Go beat Sony”. The “warchest” doesn’t exist. Give it up.




https:/https://learnbonds.com/news/microsoft-corporation-msft-loses-money-on-xbox-one-sales/

 

[magnumpy]

this is the end

the end of gaming forever

 

[John254]

I love how PS fans claiming everything is "custom" and everything is Cerny's baby but when it comes to cost, PS5 will surely cost less. Even with that amazing SSD, even with that all custom silicon, even with every bell and whistle in terms of cooling a high clocked chips.

It's really amazing that bending of reality.

Just get fact's that we have straight
Manufacturing cost of PS5 is, according from Bloomberg, 450$. And that's price only for manufacturing. No R&D cost, no logistic cost, no margin for vendors etc. Are you serious expecting, that Sony will sell it for 399$? Okay. I admire your optimism.

Industry analyst Daniel Ahmad also said that manufacturing cost for XsX "may be higher than PS5, but in a manner that is not significant" which can tell you, that it will be around 460$-490$.
So you really want to tell me, that Sony will sell their console for 399$ and Microsoft will struggle to sell XsX for 499$?

Jesus, that mental gymnastic that some of the fanboys are making...

 

[Tomeru]

I thought the heat/pdt ceiling for ps5 is already set. We know the max freq and max power draw (Cerny said 200w I think?), so there shouldnt be anything unexpected about how much heat the ps5 will generate.

 

[longdi]

I love how PS fans claiming everything is "custom" and everything is Cerny's baby but when it comes to cost, PS5 will surely cost less. Even with that amazing SSD, even with that all custom silicon, even with every bell and whistle in terms of cooling a high clocked chips.

It's really amazing that bending of reality.

Just get fact's that we have straight
Manufacturing cost of PS5 is, according from Bloomberg, 450$. And that's price only for manufacturing. No R&D cost, no logistic cost, no margin for vendors etc. Are you serious expecting, that Sony will sell it for 399$? Okay. I admire your optimism.

Industry analyst Daniel Ahmad also said that manufacturing cost for XsX "may be higher than PS5, but in a manner that is not significant" which can tell you, that it will be around 460$-490$.
So you really want to tell me, that Sony will sell their console for 399$ and Microsoft will struggle to sell XsX for 499$?

Jesus, that mental gymnastic that some of the fanboys are making...

Too much mental gymnatic trying to convince themselves, 'oh the graphics performance is closest to date, oh the ssd will make impossible games possible'.

Once Sony show the final system and their 'ssd'd games, we shall see.

Until then, Series X have presented their cards clearly and we should appreciate MS efforts.

 

[wolffy71]

So, them not selling the last two console at loss is no indication of them behaving again that way? Why? Elaborate, you are the one not making any point at all.

So, them not selling the last two console at loss is no indication of them behaving again that way? Why? Elaborate, you are the one not making any point at all.

Why do I need to elaborate? You claimed that because MS didnt sell the last two consoles at loss that they are now unwilling to sell one at a loss. You simply have not proved that in any way. Simple point by me, you're assuming but acting as if its a fact.

 

[cireza]

Same here. I think that the prices will be the ~50$ same, which is not what I thought initially. But now that we have a clearer picture, it looks likely to me.

 

[Trimesh]

No. There's no way a bigger Die, with more transistors, running at similar frequencies, draws more power.
And SSDs have never had such high power draws. I might suggest you to do some Electronic Engineering Exams before speaking. No way power draw is higher on PS5, as any machine ever, GPU is the king of electricity hunger.

W = C * V^2 * F

Where
C = Capacitance (in an IC this is typically dominated by gate capacitance)
V = Supply voltage
F = Clock speed

W = power

The catch is that as you increase the clock you also have to increase V, because RDs(on) remains largely constant and you have less time to charge the gate capacitance - so effectively the power consumption increases in a polynomial manner with respect to the clock speed, while the power consumption increases in a linear manner with respect to the die area.

So yes, a smaller die that's clocked faster absolutely can take more power than a larger die clocked at a lower clock speed. I have no idea if the PS5 does, but stating this is impossible is simply wrong.

And yes, I have taken a number of those "Electrical Engineering Exams".

 

[NXGamer]

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.

This is NOT what the I/O core design and SSD is for, this is what MS are pushing as the conversation piece but Sony are not driving this as the main benefit, merely a by product of the other solution. Just loading a game, all apps, will be quicker on PS5 but it will not be where the biggest gaps come, relatively it will be one of the smallest in the end.

As for design and cost, Sony are and have always been much more cost focused, they know the power of price trumps all. MS launching dual SKU's means the Series X will almost 100% be at the same price or slightly higher than the X launched as the Lockhart will offer next gen, SSD, ZEN2 etc for a similar price as the S model.

Thus is feel the MRP will be close ($/£50-£/$80 apart) and is always the final piece each company will weigh up as how much of a loss leader they can swallow.

 

[K.N.W.]

W = C * V^2 * F

Where
C = Capacitance (in an IC this is typically dominated by gate capacitance)
V = Supply voltage
F = Clock speed

W = power

The catch is that as you increase the clock you also have to increase V, because RDs(on) remains largely constant and you have less time to charge the gate capacitance - so effectively the power consumption increases in a polynomial manner with respect to the clock speed, while the power consumption increases in a linear manner with respect to the die area.

So yes, a smaller die that's clocked faster absolutely can take more power than a larger die clocked at a lower clock speed. I have no idea if the PS5 does, but stating this is impossible is simply wrong.

And yes, I have taken a number of those "Electrical Engineering Exams".

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

Why do I need to elaborate? You claimed that because MS didnt sell the last two consoles at loss that they are now unwilling to sell one at a loss. You simply have not proved that in any way. Simple point by me, you're assuming but acting as if its a fact.

But still, you aren't saying anything I understand you problem is with me not using words like "I think" "maybe" "could", like I always do, but forgetting once is not an excuse for being attacked with nothing. Elaborate how it could be otherwise, please. And even accusing me of acting like it was fact is too much, you are reading too much into words.

 

[Azurro]

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.

This is a really bad assumption, the relationship between APU size and cost isn't linear. The bigger the APU, the more complicated it is to manufacture, as chips take more space in the wafer and are more likely to be defective.

We don't really know the PS5's die size exactly, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Xbox APU was 50% more expensive.

 

[Xyphie]

PS5:
SoC: ~300mm2(?)
RAM: 8 x 16Gbit GDDR6
SSD/NAND: 12 x 512Gbit + controller is probably a bit more expensive than on XSX because it's 3x width.

XSX:
SoC: 360mm2
RAM: 6 x 16Gbit + 4 x 8Gbit GDDR6
SSD/NAND: 8 x 1024Gbit or 4 x 2048Gbit

Everything else like WLAN, Blu-ray drive, power supply, controller etc will be pretty much the same for both.

The raw wafer cost of the bigger XSX SoC isn't that big, if we use a conservative $10k wafer cost with last known defect rate for TSMC N7P (D0=0.05) it's like $10 extra per chip. We don't know how AMD gets paid though. Since the XSX GPU is 50% faster in silicon they could be paid significantly more.

RAM comes down to if 2x8Gbit > 1x16Gbit in cost. Similarly with the SSDs, XSX SSD has ~33% higher total capacity but spread over fewer chips.

 

[longdi]

PS5:
SoC: ~300mm2(?)
RAM: 8 x 16Gbit GDDR6
SSD/NAND: 12 x 512Gbit + controller is probably a bit more expensive than on XSX because it's 3x width.

XSX:
SoC: 360mm2
RAM: 6 x 16Gbit + 4 x 8Gbit GDDR6
SSD/NAND: 8 x 1024Gbit or 4 x 2048Gbit

Everything else like WLAN, Blu-ray drive, power supply, controller etc will be pretty much the same for both.

The raw wafer cost of the bigger XSX SoC isn't that big, if we use a conservative $10k wafer cost with last known defect rate for TSMC N7P (D0=0.05) it's like $10 extra per chip. We don't know how AMD gets paid though. Since the XSX GPU is 50% faster in silicon they could be paid significantly more.

RAM comes down to if 2x8Gbit > 1x16Gbit in cost. Similarly with the SSDs, XSX SSD has ~33% higher total capacity but spread over fewer chips.

MS may also negotiate better rates with AMD, together with their Zen2 mobile for Surface laptops.
Bom is going to be closer than we think.
This has been a great journey for Phil's team.

 

[wolffy71]

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


But still, you aren't saying anything I understand you problem is with me not using words like "I think" "maybe" "could", like I always do, but forgetting once is not an excuse for being attacked with nothing. Elaborate how it could be otherwise, please. And even accusing me of acting like it was fact is too much, you are reading too much into words.

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

 

[darkinstinct]

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.

Thank you. You are even off with the APU. PS5 has less CU but it uses ESRAM on the APU. That uses up a ton of space and could actually make the PS5 APU more expensive than the XSX APU (the same thing happend this gen, when Xbox One was using ESRAM and had less CU and turned out to be $10 more expensive to produce than the PS4 APU). From what I can see the PS5 APU will at best have identical cost to the XSX APU but Sony will have a substantially more expensive SSD (Microsoft doesn't use DRAM for their controller and lower quality NAND overall, Sony uses DRAM and highest quality NAND) and a more expensive cooling solution and a $10 more expensive controller (haptics, touchpad, internal battery, gyro, speaker). With everything else being pretty much the same. The PS5 BOM should be around $440, the XSX BOM should be around $410.

 

[darkinstinct]

The smaller die size of the weaker 36cu PS5 makes it the cheaper $399. That's easy....

PS4 die size: 348 mm^2, 0 MB ESRAM, 18 CU, $100 cost
XBO die size: 362 mm^2, 32 MB ESRAM, 12 CU, $110 cost

PS5 die size: 3xx mm^2, 72 MB ESRAM, 36 CU, $120 cost
XSX die size: 360 mm^2, 0 MB ESRAM, 52 CU, $110 cost

You are a fool if you think you can just cut the die size by the relative number of CUs. There's a very good chance that the PS5 APU is larger than the XSX APU because of ESRAM. The questions is why does PS5 even need ESRAM. I suppose it's because raytracing was an afterthought. You need high memory bandwidth for raytracing and their original memory setup is not sufficient. So they add 72 MB of very fast ESRAM to process the rays. Same way that Microsoft needed to reach higher bandwidth on Xbox One.

 

[Deleted member 775630]

What on a BOM makes the SSD more expensive?

R&D?

 

[darkinstinct]

What on a BOM makes the SSD more expensive?

Sony uses DRAM for their SSD controller (that's why it can be so fast), Microsoft doesn't. DRAM prices exploded this year. That's easily $7.50 more for the Sony SSD. They also need to use NAND that is good for the sustained high speeds, that's another $10 they have to spend more on their SSD. It doesn't help that NAND prices also went up and that the high quality NAND Sony uses is in limited supply.

We don't know how AMD gets paid though. Since the XSX GPU is 50% faster in silicon they could be paid significantly more.

We absolutely do know. AMD sells designs. That's why they have customers, because unlike Nvidia they actually sell the complete APU design and retain no rights. They get a fixed sum for the contract and get paid for every APU ordered. How powerful the APU is has nothing to do with how much it costs, it's just a different design. Just like with Xbox One Microsoft had other priorities than Sony, but overall they went for a comparable transistor budget. Just Sony spent it on CUs, Microsoft on ESRAM. Now they have reversed the roles.

 

[Three]

R&D?

That's not the BOM. R&D is different.