-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Xbox One Costs $90 More to Build Than PS4, Teardown Shows ($75 Kinect 2)
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
Chobel
Member
Where's the dGPU?
jk
Dirk Benedict
Member
So, was RROD part of the grand design that our geniuses at MS had in store for us all along?
It's inside the powerbrick. But you need the cloud to access it.
Cow Goes Moo
Member
Sony just got luckier than MS guys
remember luck has 50% to do with these price figures
therefore Sony is actually 50% more expensive when you factor in the luckiness gradient
remember luck has 50% to do with these price figures
therefore Sony is actually 50% more expensive when you factor in the luckiness gradient
They are more of a hardware company, it probably would have happened last gen if they hadn't bet the farm on the cell
anexanhume
Member
We have no idea if they're beating them on yield. We only have rumors. The other three factors are clear things we can observe though.
Microsoft decided to cheap out on memory. To compensate, it adds embedded RAM.
But the ERAM is taking up space!! So they downsize the GPU.
At the end, they ends up with a system that is bigger, weaker, more expensive and harder to develop. To hide such fact, they pay marketing money to "game journalist". To compensate that cost, add micro transaction in every $60 game they have.
But the ERAM is taking up space!! So they downsize the GPU.
At the end, they ends up with a system that is bigger, weaker, more expensive and harder to develop. To hide such fact, they pay marketing money to "game journalist". To compensate that cost, add micro transaction in every $60 game they have.
So no secret sauce in the end....
They're releasing in 33 countries vs 13. That's a pretty clear idea.
38 including the Asian countries.
Iacobellis
Junior Member
Cheaper to make and more powerful...
SONY WINS! SONY WINS!
SONY WINS! SONY WINS!
I believe the upscaler and the "pop" sharpen filter are the secret sauce.
Ricerocket
Member
Damn eSRAM really does take up about 30% of the chip.
It's going to allow Sony to be far more aggressive with pricing too. They're already $100 cheaper, so they don't have to bump the price down for quite some time, but when Microsoft finally chooses to do a price cut, Sony can counter just as strongly or offer some equally (or more) enticing pack-in bundles. Microsoft is not in a great position right now.
Not to mention that higher transistor count directly leads to lower yields. A lot more "parts" that can go bad, effectively.
Chezzymann
Member
Soda is practically free. The average soda costs like 10 cents to make, including the cup. And yet most places charge around $2.
Begaria
Member
Oh boy, misterxmedia is going to be fun to read the next day or two.
...
I lied. It's fun to read every day on the hour every hour
anexanhume
Member
Not really. It's completely plausible that MS started production later meaning less inventory.
K
kittens
Unconfirmed Member
I predict a cheaper, smaller redesign within two years.
DJ12
Member
Fortune favours the brave. You make your own luck or any other cliché you wish to use seem to fit the bill here.
Netherscourge
Banned
The prices aren't as interesting as the timing, IMO.
I want to know two things:
1. Which company, Microsoft/Sony, submitted their contract with AMD first?
2. Did EITHER company have any inside-information on what the other company had contracted for? If so, were changes made as a result of the competition's specs?
As late as 2012, the PS4 was going to ship with 4GB GDDR5. Then it became 8GB GDDR5. Why? Did Sony have any inside info on the XB1 specs at the time? Also, when exactly did MS decide to implement eSRAM? Was that in their original contract order? Or was that a response to Sony going with GDDR5 over DDR3?
Or was this all, honestly, 100% confidential and the final specs for both the PS4 and the XB1 were both totally secret until earlier this year when they were both revealed?
I want to know two things:
1. Which company, Microsoft/Sony, submitted their contract with AMD first?
2. Did EITHER company have any inside-information on what the other company had contracted for? If so, were changes made as a result of the competition's specs?
As late as 2012, the PS4 was going to ship with 4GB GDDR5. Then it became 8GB GDDR5. Why? Did Sony have any inside info on the XB1 specs at the time? Also, when exactly did MS decide to implement eSRAM? Was that in their original contract order? Or was that a response to Sony going with GDDR5 over DDR3?
Or was this all, honestly, 100% confidential and the final specs for both the PS4 and the XB1 were both totally secret until earlier this year when they were both revealed?
Started production later for what reason? Possibly because fabrication took longer than expected?
Bigger APU + More money per APU = Lower yield. If you want to ignore the evidence fine, but it's there.
SneakyStephan
Banned
That giant amount of die space taken up by the esram, and since they're already using an APU the cpu and gpu and that esram ALL goes on one die , so you get a gynormous die which makes for high costs and worse yields
And again since it's an apu they were forced to use 28nm for the bandaid ram, so they had to go with inferior (much larger die space, much slower) esram instead of edram (which I believe is still only made at 32nm)
that and the dumb kinect
the whole xbox is a design fail
Should've gone with a seperate cpu and seperate gpu and system ram and vram, they could have had way more power and way way way more bandwidth with the same transistor budget, and gotten better yields since they'd had multiple smaller dies instead of that one enormous one.
Any cost savings from having a simpler pcb with the apu have been tenfold negated by it being so large and the crippled memory setup
AMD scammed them good with their weaksauce cpu and apu (piledriver was not an option since it consumes twice as much power than the intel equivalent, so that left their shitty jaguar cpu and apu)
The only upside is this helps keep AMD afloat so the pc hardware industry doesn't turn into a nasty monopoly just yet.
edit: just look at the picture above, see those giant areas labeled sram, all of that die space could have gone to the gpu , instead it went to nothing but a poor bandaid that is only there to try n compensate for using ddr3 ram
the xbone could've been vastly more powerful than it is now at the same cost
Sony was happy with 4GB gddr5, gddr5 memory density doubled in 2013 so they could use 512Mb chips instead of 256, free doubling of vram size at the same cost, that's all that happened, they swapped out vram chips for the higher densitity one, it doesn't require a change to the memory bus or pcb, nothing it's a no brainer
MS had to have 8GB ram at all costs (literally, it cost them so much in performance , yields and hardware cost) because kinect kinect tv sports sports or god knows why.
noone knew if the double ram density would be ready in time so they went for the only sure option , ddr3
Basically xbone hardware is overpriced and shit because they made it a gaming console second (or third) and a kinect/tv box first
The whole point of consoles used to be that it was dedicated gaming hardware, so much for that.
Glorified G
Member
lol. Cerny is legit
Nope, it's 40+ countries when you include India, South Africa, Middle eastern countries, & other asian countries that weren't originally annouced at TGS.
Is there a full list somewhere?
I belive it was Adam Boyes speaking to Giantbomb when he said it was Gearbox who flat out told them if they went with 4GB they would straight out lose the generation.
Umm, shouldn't we wait for the financials before we say this?
Not sure what point there would be in winning a war that leaves your company on the ropes financially.
That's the thing I'm personally most interested in this gen (aside from gaming).
How will these companies justify the losses they're generating with these machines?
Vicetrailia
Member
Damn $9 and $14 per box on MFG assembly, dat china wages. Dang.
And it doesn't even matter if the PS4 has HDMI-In or not. HDMI cablebox passthrough is last-gen tech that flopped & never caught on. Google TV OEM's are no longer supporting it (Which Sony is 1 of the main GoogleTV OEMs). The future is IPTV/Live TV apps & DLNA Premium video.
BRocknRolla
Member
I don't think he was being serious with the "Sony wins!" thing. More that it was a sarcastic remark about that being a metric for victory.
I am likewise interested in seeing how these consoles effect the companies. On one hand, Sony's other arms are in a financially troubled state; the PS4 is seen as a boon for the company. MS on the other hand has elements who despise the Xbox division and seen it as an albatross around the company's neck. If the PS4 doesn't do well, it will spell serious problems for Sony as a whole. If the Xbox doesn't do well, it seems increasingly likely that MS may try to offload it. Time will tell.
GoofsterStud
Member
I kept telling everyone Esram is a bad idea...
A.) It's not enough (A bottleneck of sorts)
B.) It's going to cost them GPU in the long run
C.) It's not cheap
I love saying I told you so.
Next up.
A.) DDR3 prices rise (it's already starting)
B.) GDDR5 prices lower
Questionable:
A.) I said Esram would raise the temps potentially causing more long term defects; however, we already know Xbox runs hotter with more room/vents and which we assume is superior cooling.
Either they weren't agile or were not thinking about the future.
A.) It's not enough (A bottleneck of sorts)
B.) It's going to cost them GPU in the long run
C.) It's not cheap
I love saying I told you so. Next up.
A.) DDR3 prices rise (it's already starting)
B.) GDDR5 prices lower
Questionable:
A.) I said Esram would raise the temps potentially causing more long term defects; however, we already know Xbox runs hotter with more room/vents and which we assume is superior cooling.
Either they weren't agile or were not thinking about the future.
dragonbane
Member
I'm not disagreeing with you, but the last three big PS3 exclusives, GoW:A, The Last of Us and Beyond really do look incredible for PS3. Almost next gen in some ways (especially Beyond).
I don't think there will be another XBox after this one (heh)
Good luck also to whoever buys the division.
And I'm keeping one eye also on what Apple does, because I suspect they're going to disrupt the whole idea of "gaming consoles" as loss leaders.
Both Sony and Microsoft are going to get blind sided
Lets stop saying this already. The DC needs to end. Sony researched this better and we can see that all the way from February to launch with all the leaks. Microsoft goofed and it has shown and still showing.
I kept telling everyone Esram is a bad idea...
A.) It's not enough
B.) It's going to cost them GPU in the lock run
C.) It's not cheap
Next up.
A.) DDR3 prices rise (it's already starting)
B.) GDDR5 prices lower
Questaniable:
A.) I said Esram would raise the temps potentially causing more long term defects; however, we already know Xbox runs hotter with more room/vents and which we assume is superior cooling.
Either they weren't agile or were not thinking about the future.
I've always believed in you.
MS with that expensive eSRAM &/or the APU inside of the console. Oh my.
Grampa Simpson
Banned
Just for a side by side comparison, here's the PS4:
Damn.
TetraGenesis
Member
Why do we need to look at the "WHY"?
It doesn't matter what Sony and Microsoft could have done, what matters is what they ended up doing. And what Microsoft ended up doing was releasing a weaker console that costs more to produce even without the Kinect.
GoofsterStud
Member
Sony Easy:
+GDDR prices are dropping (quite quickly)
+Standardised chip will go down in price
Microsoft Challenging:
-DDR3 prices are rising
-Custom chips take longer for prices to lower
-Esram prices never really drop or rise
=External brick prices won't go down
=HDMI in price is already as low as it'll probably get.
+Kinect is the wild card and could go down quick
This assumes neither console has yield problems.
It isn't about researching better, it is about risk. Going GDDR5 for Microsoft would have put their 2013 launch at risk, Sony had nothing at risk.
Microsoft didn't goof, they had different design priorities. It remains go be seen whether those priorities will pay off in the long run.
Why on earth would he esram price not go down? Like everything else on the APU, it is tied to the manufacturing process isn't it?
Because if people are going to run their mouth about how Microsoft's engineers are bad or how they have screwed up it is nice to understand the why.