Next-Gen PS5 & XSX |OT| Console tEch threaD

Status
Not open for further replies.
IF the PS5 is $499, i can easily see the Xbox Series X Selling for $599.

They have a more expensive
- APU - those extra 16 CUs will be at least $20. $40 if costs have doubled since PS4/X1 launch.
- RAM - again 560 Gbps chips are expensive. Add another $20-40 here.
- SSD - 1 TB SSD is going might be more expensive than a 800 GB SSD simply because its bigger. $10-20 here.
- Vapor chamber cooling - After the bloomberg article on PS5 BOM came out, Penello expressed surprised at the PS5's so called expensive cooling solution only costing a few dollars. he dismissed it entirely because he said fancy cooling costs way more than a few dollars. Expect another $15 gap here.

you total all that up, and we are looking at $65-115 difference between the two consoles. even if it is at the lower end around $60, the retail cut on that is going to be far more than what a $499 console's retailer cut would be.

If the bloomberg article is true, and PS5 BOM is $450 for physical edition then i can see Sony launching the Physical edition for a markup of $499 and DE at $399 with MS taking a slightly bigger loss to come in at $499.
 
SlimySnake said:
IF the PS5 is $499, i can easily see the Xbox Series X Selling for $599.

They have a more expensive
- APU - those extra 16 CUs will be at least $20. $40 if costs have doubled since PS4/X1 launch.
- RAM - again 560 Gbps chips are expensive. Add another $20-40 here.
- SSD - 1 TB SSD is going might be more expensive than a 800 GB SSD simply because its bigger. $10-20 here.
- Vapor chamber cooling - After the bloomberg article on PS5 BOM came out, Penello expressed surprised at the PS5's so called expensive cooling solution only costing a few dollars. he dismissed it entirely because he said fancy cooling costs way more than a few dollars. Expect another $15 gap here.

you total all that up, and we are looking at $65-115 difference between the two consoles. even if it is at the lower end around $60, the retail cut on that is going to be far more than what a $499 console's retailer cut would be.

If the bloomberg article is true, and PS5 BOM is $450 for physical edition then i can see Sony launching the Physical edition for a markup of $499 and DE at $399 with MS taking a slightly bigger loss to come in at $499.
Click to expand...
well, let's put it this way:

if xbox comes out and is more expensive than ps5, then we will all know that Phil was 100% frank when he was saying "I dont care about how many consoles I'll sell" :]
 
SlimySnake said:
IF the PS5 is $499, i can easily see the Xbox Series X Selling for $599.

They have a more expensive
- APU - those extra 16 CUs will be at least $20. $40 if costs have doubled since PS4/X1 launch.
- RAM - again 560 Gbps chips are expensive. Add another $20-40 here.
- SSD - 1 TB SSD is going might be more expensive than a 800 GB SSD simply because its bigger. $10-20 here.
- Vapor chamber cooling - After the bloomberg article on PS5 BOM came out, Penello expressed surprised at the PS5's so called expensive cooling solution only costing a few dollars. he dismissed it entirely because he said fancy cooling costs way more than a few dollars. Expect another $15 gap here.

you total all that up, and we are looking at $65-115 difference between the two consoles. even if it is at the lower end around $60, the retail cut on that is going to be far more than what a $499 console's retailer cut would be.

If the bloomberg article is true, and PS5 BOM is $450 for physical edition then i can see Sony launching the Physical edition for a markup of $499 and DE at $399 with MS taking a slightly bigger loss to come in at $499.
Click to expand...
If the Series X is a little more expensive than the PS5 it could explain why the Series S exist but i think Microsoft would want to match the price of the PS5 with the Series X but if it's really $499 vs $599 it would be a bloodbath for Xbox.

Honestly at this point the strategy from Micrososft seems like a gigantic mess. I don't know it was possible to sabotage ourselves so much before we see their last two showcases specially after the Xbox One fisaco.
 
ArcaneNLSC said:
This puts it in to perspective

OX4vS2F.jpg
Click to expand...
This graph and what Innocence talked about SSD is analogous to TerraFLOPS, as in 'Rated' and 'In-Practice' are not the same thing. What the TF graph will look like for XSX and PS5 remains to be seen... but not hard to guess knowing which console has gone to lengths to eliminating bottlenecks :lollipop_winking:

Talking about bottlenecks, just wanna address another misconception about XSX's assymetrical split memory setup. The bandwidth is not 560GB/s and 336GB/s (ie 896GB/s! wtf) when it's using the same physical memory bus! The actual (singular) memory bus's bandwidth will be an average taken by the ratio of the usage of each memory pool's throughput, that won't be anywhere near 560GB/s! Microsoft being creative with the specs numbers again, it's not the first time!

Sorry all I been sounding like a broken record lately, I been trying to set it straight :pie_roffles: . These arguments over 12TF > 10TF and 560GB/s are bogus when the numbers are actually wrong. But can't blame them when that's what been fed by Microsoft
 
Last edited:
SlimySnake said:
IF the PS5 is $499, i can easily see the Xbox Series X Selling for $599.

They have a more expensive
- RAM - again 560 Gbps chips are expensive. Add another $20-40 here.
Click to expand...

Just a quick heads up. GDDR6 for XSX and PS5 is the same speed. 14 Gbps. Both are buying 16 GB total.

The 560 GB/s is because they are using 32 b x 10 lanes = 320 bit bus. 14 x 32 x 10 / 8 = 560.

The difference is Microsoft is buying 6 chips with a density of 2 GB each, and 4 chips of 1 GB each, for a total of 10 chips in every Xbox Series X. 6 x 2 + 4 x 1 = 16.

All we know is PS5 has 16 GB and 8 lanes instead of 10 for a 256 bit bus. Safe to assume they are buying 2 GB chips, and will have to use 8 for every PS5.

The differences in cost could be
1) 320 bit bus vs 256 bit bus
2) 10 chips vs 8 chips
3) mix of 1 and 2 GB chips vs all 2 GB chips

I don't know what is cheaper, but the PS5 setup seems simpler. Sony might be buying in larger quantities, could lower cost. Idk. I'd assume a 1 GB chip of GDDR6 would cost less than a chip with twice the density.
 
Last edited:
roops67 said:
This graph and what Innocence talked about SSD is analogous to TerraFLOPS, 'Rated' and 'In-Practice' are not the same thing! What the TF graph will look like for XSX and PS5 remains to be seen... but not hard to guess knowing which console has gone to lengths to eliminating bottlenecks :lollipop_winking:

Talking about bottlenecks, just wanna address another misconception about XSX's assymetrical split memory setup. The bandwidth is not 560GB/s and 336GB/s (ie 896GB/s!?!) when it's using the same physical memory bus! The actual (singular) memory bus's bandwidth will be an average taken by the ratio of the usage of each memory pool's speed, no way that will be anywhere near 560GB/s! Microsoft being creative with the specs, it's not the first time!

Sorry all I been sounding like a broken record lately. These arguments over 12TF > 10TF and 560GB/s are bogus when the numbers are actually wrong. But can't blame them when that's what been fed by Microsoft
Click to expand...

Man, I read some of the JDEC standards for GDDR6 and went on a hunt of information about the dual memory setup and found nothing to sustain the claim that either the final bandwidth is the sum of both memory speeds or that a system could sustain the highest speed when reading from both memory setups.

nVidia does this too and according to Anandtech those cards suffer a performance penalty when using both setups.

And, of course, MS marketing is useless.
 
SlimySnake said:
IF the PS5 is $499, i can easily see the Xbox Series X Selling for $599.

They have a more expensive
- APU - those extra 16 CUs will be at least $20. $40 if costs have doubled since PS4/X1 launch.
- RAM - again 560 Gbps chips are expensive. Add another $20-40 here.
- SSD - 1 TB SSD is going might be more expensive than a 800 GB SSD simply because its bigger. $10-20 here.
- Vapor chamber cooling - After the bloomberg article on PS5 BOM came out, Penello expressed surprised at the PS5's so called expensive cooling solution only costing a few dollars. he dismissed it entirely because he said fancy cooling costs way more than a few dollars. Expect another $15 gap here.

you total all that up, and we are looking at $65-115 difference between the two consoles. even if it is at the lower end around $60, the retail cut on that is going to be far more than what a $499 console's retailer cut would be.

If the bloomberg article is true, and PS5 BOM is $450 for physical edition then i can see Sony launching the Physical edition for a markup of $499 and DE at $399 with MS taking a slightly bigger loss to come in at $499.
Click to expand...

I estimated the difference in BoM between the two consoles a while ago, and my conclusion was same as yours it should be around $50-60 more costly to built. But, the majority of savings would be from the APU, rather than rest of the machine. I'm sure you remember about AquarisZi? That guy was first to tell us about PS5 SoC size at ~300mm2. His guesstimate along with Github had so many peddling the $399 tag and the power differential in next-gen OTs. As time has passed on, I'm leaning towards his suggestion being right. 40CUs are tiny, and their I/O customization won't take up much space on the die. It could very well be the smallest SoC every built for a PlayStation, and compared to Series X save them most on cost.

RAM is easy to guess, as MS are simply buying 2 more modules. The same goes for PCB cost, due to bus and two separate motherboards.

SSD, I think Sony are spending more, simply because flash is expensive, and they are buying 12 of those modules albeit small, compared to 4 for Series X. Same goes for some other peripherals, such as the controller and the more fanciful box design.

Cooling is an interesting one, because from the patent we saw, the heatpipes will go through the board, them using liquid metal compound is another cheaper yet effective method of cooling. But, it's tough to estimate if Sony are saving any money here until we see the tear down.

Overall, as time passes, I'm more convinced about Series X being sold at a premium to PS5. I just haven't got the feeling from MS, that they are desperate for us to buy their box, the interview posted today, is along the same lines. Logically too, why would you spend hundreds of million of dollars in R&D for a new (lower-spec) console, when you can keep the cost down on the more powerful model? Or you have a blank check from MS to eat those losses. It just doesn't jive. Spencers quote on not being beaten on "power and price" will be right, but it won't be true in fashion many were expecting i.e. Series X will be more powerful yet at par/cheaper than PS5. I think he was simply eluding to their next-gen dual SKU strategy. There was a monster energy promo which had Series X + Halo Infinite bundle which came down at $599 in total, if you take the cost of physical copy of HI out. Then it's possible we might be looking at cost of Series X at $549.

I'm gonna stick with my prediction of $549 Series X, $499 PS5, $449 PS5 DE, $349 Series S.
 
icerock said:
I estimated the difference in BoM between the two consoles a while ago, and my conclusion was same as yours it should be around $50-60 more costly to built. But, the majority of savings would be from the APU, rather than rest of the machine. I'm sure you remember about AquarisZi? That guy was first to tell us about PS5 SoC size at ~300mm2. His guesstimate along with Github had so many peddling the $399 tag and the power differential in next-gen OTs. As time has passed on, I'm leaning towards his suggestion being right. 40CUs are tiny, and their I/O customization won't take up much space on the die. It could very well be the smallest SoC every built for a PlayStation, and compared to Series X save them most on cost.

RAM is easy to guess, as MS are simply buying 2 more modules. The same goes for PCB cost, due to bus and two separate motherboards.

SSD, I think Sony are spending more, simply because flash is expensive, and they are buying 12 of those modules albeit small, compared to 4 for Series X. Same goes for some other peripherals, such as the controller and the more fanciful box design.

Cooling is an interesting one, because from the patent we saw, the heatpipes will go through the board, them using liquid metal compound is another cheaper yet effective method of cooling. But, it's tough to estimate if Sony are saving any money here until we see the tear down.

Overall, as time passes, I'm more convinced about Series X being sold at a premium to PS5. I just haven't got the feeling from MS, that they are desperate for us to buy their box, the interview posted today, is along the same lines. Logically too, why would you spend hundreds of million of dollars in R&D for a new (lower-spec) console, when you can keep the cost down on the more powerful model? Or you have a blank check from MS to eat those losses. It just doesn't jive. Spencers quote on not being beaten on "power and price" will be right, but it won't be true in fashion many were expecting i.e. Series X will be more powerful yet at par/cheaper than PS5. I think he was simply eluding to their next-gen dual SKU strategy. There was a monster energy promo which had Series X + Halo Infinite bundle which came down at $599 in total, if you take the cost of physical copy of HI out. Then it's possible we might be looking at cost of Series X at $549.

I'm gonna stick with my prediction of $549 Series X, $499 PS5, $449 PS5 DE, $349 Series S.
Click to expand...
Yeah, $549 sounds about right and in line with what Zhuge said about the XSX BOM being in the $460-510 range.

I also think that if they had a $299 and a $499 console, they wouldve announced it a while ago. Same goes for Sony. if they had a $399 Digital edition, they wouldve ended their conference with that and wouldnt have sat on the news for the next few months.

but then again, they recently doubled their shipments to 10 million so who the fuck knows.
 
kyliethicc said:
Just a quick heads up. GDDR6 for XSX and PS5 is the same speed. 14 Gbps. Both are buying 16 GB total.

The 560 GB/s is because they are using 32 b x 10 lanes = 320 bit bus. 14 x 32 x 10 / 8 = 560.

The difference is Microsoft is buying 6 chips with a density of 2 GB each, and 4 chips of 1 GB each, for a total of 10 chips in every Xbox Series X. 6 x 2 + 4 x 1 = 16.

All we know is PS5 has 16 GB and 8 lanes instead of 10 for a 256 bit bus. Safe to assume they are buying 2 GB chips, and will have to use 8 for every PS5.

The differences in cost could be
1) 320 bit bus vs 256 bit bus
2) 10 chips vs 8 chips
3) mix of 1 and 2 GB chips vs all 2 GB chips

I don't know what is cheaper, but the PS5 setup seems simpler. Sony might be buying in larger quantities, could lower cost. Idk. I'd assume a 1 GB chip of GDDR6 would cost less than a chip with twice the density.
Click to expand...
thanks for clearing this up.

a couple of questions. i thought they had a 10 GB pool of 560 gbps and a 6 gb pool of 336 gbps. so wouldnt that mean they are buying 5 2gb chips instead of 6? why would they another 2 gb chip and have it go through a slower 336 gbps bandwidth. wouldnt that be a waste?

it almost seems to be that the ram allocations would be a wash.
 
SlimySnake said:
thanks for clearing this up.

a couple of questions. i thought they had a 10 GB pool of 560 gbps and a 6 gb pool of 336 gbps. so wouldnt that mean they are buying 5 2gb chips instead of 6? why would they another 2 gb chip and have it go through a slower 336 gbps bandwidth. wouldnt that be a waste?

it almost seems to be that the ram allocations would be a wash.
Click to expand...
It's not that simple. They have 10 chips and 10 lanes. 6 of those 10 chips are 2 GB, and the other 4 chips are 1 GB.

The maximum bandwidth is determined by the bus width, 320 bit, 256 bit, 384 bit etc.

My understanding is each lane connects to a chip, each lane is 32 bit wide, and the total width is say 32x8=256. They can connect 2 chips per lane, but it has to be evenly distributed. For example, the launch PS4 used 16 chips with 8 lanes to get their 8 GB of ram.

Basically, the Xbox memory pools are mixed. They can't get that 6 GB portion to be faster because they'd need to spend even more.

My understanding is the "first" 10 GB feeds into 10 lanes, 1 chip per lane. So all lanes being used. Full speed. 14 Gbps x320b /8 = 560.

Then the 6 chips that are 2 GB result in 6 GB @ 336 GB/s because only 6 of the 10 lanes are being used. Only 6 chips, only can be 6 lanes. 6 x 32b = 192 bit bus (effectively). So 14 Gbps x 32b x 6 lanes / 8 = 336 GB/s.

Thats why they have 10 GB and 6 GB at different speeds. They would need to have 20 GB of RAM to used all 10 lanes all the time, but that would cost more. The benefit would be 1) all the memory would be unified at 560 GB/s instead of split, and 2) they'd have more ram (obviously). But they clearly didn't want to spend that much.

With 14 Gbps GDDR6, and a more conventional 256 bit bus, like PS5, the bandwidth is 448 GB/s. But that's not enough for a 12 TF GPU in the Xbox, so they figured out a way to get enough bandwidth for their GPU without spending even more to get 20 GB total RAM.

Only other option would be faster GDDR6 chips, 16 or 18 Gbps, which cost even more. Sony could use that option if they wanted 512 or 576 GB/s for a PS5 Pro down the line. That's what they did with PS4 Pro. PS4 has 5.5 Gbps GDDR5 @ 176 GB/s, but the PS4 Pro needed more bandwidth, so they used faster 6.8 Gbps GDDR5 to get more bandwidth for Pro, 217 GB/s.

Sorry for the long post.
 
Last edited:
SlimySnake said:
Yeah, $549 sounds about right and in line with what Zhuge said about the XSX BOM being in the $460-510 range.

I also think that if they had a $299 and a $499 console, they wouldve announced it a while ago. Same goes for Sony. if they had a $399 Digital edition, they wouldve ended their conference with that and wouldnt have sat on the news for the next few months.

but then again, they recently doubled their shipments to 10 million so who the fuck knows.
Click to expand...
I think Ms will happily charge $599 if PS5 is $599. They'll scale as much as they reasonably can to match whatever Sony is charging. That seems to be the reason for everyone playing chicken on price. Whatever they do I think Series S has to be at least $100 cheaper than Sony's cheapest model to make any sense.
 
kyliethicc said:
It's not that simple. They have 10 chips and 10 lanes. 6 of those 10 chips are 2 GB, and the other 4 chips are 1 GB.

The maximum bandwidth is determined by the bus width, 320 bit, 256 bit, 384 bit etc.

My understanding is each lane connects to a chip, each lane is 32 bit wide, and the total width is say 32x8=256. They can connect 2 chips per lane, but it has to be evenly distributed. For example, the launch PS4 used 16 chips with 8 lanes to get their 8 GB of ram.

Basically, the Xbox memory pools are mixed. They can't get that 6 GB portion to be faster because they'd need to spend even more.

My understanding is the "first" 10 GB feeds into 10 lanes, 1 chip per lane. So all lanes being used. Full speed. 14 Gbps x320b /8 = 560.

Then the 6 chips that are 2 GB result in 6 GB @ 336 GB/s because only 6 of the 10 lanes are being used. Only 6 chips, only can be 6 lanes. 6 x 32b = 192 bit bus (effectively). So 14 Gbps x 32b x 6 lanes / 8 = 336 GB/s.

Thats why they have 10 GB and 6 GB at different speeds. They would need to have 20 GB of RAM to used all 10 lanes all the time, but that would cost more. The benefit would be 1) all the memory would be unified at 560 GB/s instead of split, and 2) they'd have more ram (obviously). But they clearly didn't want to spend that much.

With 14 Gbps GDDR6, and a more conventional 256 bit bus, like PS5, the bandwidth is 448 GB/s. But that's not enough for a 12 TF GPU in the Xbox, so they figured out a way to get enough bandwidth for their GPU without spending even more to get 20 GB total RAM.

Only other option would be faster GDDR6 chips, 16 or 18 Gbps, which cost even more. Sony could use that option if they wanted 512 or 576 GB/s for a PS5 Pro down the line. That's what they did with PS4 Pro. PS4 has 5.5 Gbps GDDR5 @ 176 GB/s, but the PS4 Pro needed more bandwidth, so they used faster 6.8 Gbps GDDR5 to get more bandwidth for Pro, 217 GB/s.

Sorry for the long post.
Click to expand...
lol no need to apologize. very interesting stuff and shows me how little i know about the ram make up.

i guess now the question is, what is better? are they stuck with 10 gb of vram while sony might have access to the full 13.5 gb as vram for graphics? (assuming sony and ms are both allocating 2.5 gb for the OS)
 
SlimySnake said:
lol no need to apologize. very interesting stuff and shows me how little i know about the ram make up.

i guess now the question is, what is better? are they stuck with 10 gb of vram while sony might have access to the full 13.5 gb as vram for graphics? (assuming sony and ms are both allocating 2.5 gb for the OS)
Click to expand...

This was an interesting read, although I'm not sure how reliable it is. To me it looks like he's very knowledgeable.

Hole in my head
 
Last edited:
SlimySnake said:
lol no need to apologize. very interesting stuff and shows me how little i know about the ram make up.

i guess now the question is, what is better? are they stuck with 10 gb of vram while sony might have access to the full 13.5 gb as vram for graphics? (assuming sony and ms are both allocating 2.5 gb for the OS)
Click to expand...
Well Xbox claims they don't need all 13.5 for their GPU, and the other 3.5 @ 336 is plenty for CPU. I assume that's true.

PS5 is simpler I guess, all the ram is the same. Use it however. But their overall bandwidth might be a bit slower than ideal. Sweet spot for cost and speed seems like it would have been 512 GB/s, using 16 Gbps GDDR6.
 
Darklor01 said:
Well, you did say usually.. We all know PS3 eventually got to about even with X360 by the end of the gen.

Here are some possibilities about his vision:

A) He's way off base and Xbox Will fail the gen, at least for a long time.

B) If it's their last console, it will be a streaming and service platform only.

C) We just don't understand his vision.

D) He's completely whacked in the head and should not be in charge.

No matter what the situation is, I always recommend not professing optionsS facts. it rarely ends well.

For the record, in case anyone is wondering about my allegiance... I'm a gaming fan. I buy both consoles and want both to do well. I mainly play on PS because most of the people I've played with for years are on PlayStation. This gen, mainly on PS4, last gen, mainly on X360.
Click to expand...
PS3 outsold 360 globally from day one.

Spencer has no vision, he failed for 7 years and continues. Time for a change.
 
You guys really think that MS will sell the XSX for MORE than the PS5? Well it worked well with the XB1 so why not try it again. Maybe they'll do some TV stuff too right?
 
DarkMage619 said:
You guys really think that MS will sell the XSX for MORE than the PS5? Well it worked well with the XB1 so why not try it again. Maybe they'll do some TV stuff too right?
Click to expand...
I believe XSX disc and PS5 disc will cost 550-600 dollars. Digital Xbox and PlayStation will cost 300-350 dollars.
These companies have everything to gain if you go digital so it make sense to loose money in the short term have you be locked into their ecosystem. This will definitely help Sony long term and it would make transition very fast from PS4 to PS5.
I too believe that this is very optimistic.
 
Sinthor said:
Well, the thing is...from the state of the game as it was shown, a year delays seems very plausible. It's obvious a lot of work remains to be done and with all the restrictions due to Covid-19, a year doesn't seem like that much time. Now, if they end up revamping the game to make it XSX ONLY, then the year is probably a CONSERVATIVE estimate and I'd expect it to be delayed even longer. Probably more in line with the other XSX exclusives that won't be ready till 2 and maybe even 3 years from now. I mean, that game had PROBLEMS. Would be ok maybe if it was just a current gen game and not your flagship title, but as it is....it needed SERIOUS work.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. These people are usually paid bonuses based on game sales. It makes literally no sense to go on reddit/twitter/4chan and claim their game is a broken mess that probably won't get fixed and deter potential buyers from buying it and lessen their chances of a bonus.
 
ArcaneNLSC said:
Doesn't surprise me when I saw the gameplay I was like this needs another 18-24 months more work
Click to expand...

Since you seem in the know considering game development, I guess from experience, do you think those 18-24 months are needed because of the pandemic or because you think 343 are incompetent.
 
kyliethicc said:
With 14 Gbps GDDR6, and a more conventional 256 bit bus, like PS5, the bandwidth is 448 GB/s. But that's not enough for a 12 TF GPU in the Xbox, so they figured out a way to get enough bandwidth for their GPU without spending even more to get 20 GB total RAM.

Only other option would be faster GDDR6 chips, 16 or 18 Gbps, which cost even more. Sony could use that option if they wanted 512 or 576 GB/s for a PS5 Pro down the line. That's what they did with PS4 Pro. PS4 has 5.5 Gbps GDDR5 @ 176 GB/s, but the PS4 Pro needed more bandwidth, so they used faster 6.8 Gbps GDDR5 to get more bandwidth for Pro, 217 GB/s.
Click to expand...

Thank you fo a good post.

When it comes to what bandwidth that is required to feed the GPU there are two questions that need answers to actually know what bandwidth that is sufficient (for each console):

1) Under load, what proportion of time in % is spent waiting for the caches to be managed by the GPU before moving data from RAM to the GPU caches?
2) How much is this % reduced by the 'cache scrubbers' that the PS5 have?

At least I do not have the information to any of those questions. And to know what the sustained real GB/s is between RAM and the GPU both questions need some sort of answer.

The way I see it there are three ways to increase the GB/s between RAM and GPU. Increase the GPU cache size, increase the memory bandwidth and improve GPU cache management. It is interesting that the two consoles have chosen such different approaches - fun times!

(and hopefully we will get some more information regarding the XSX GPU cache size tomorrow)
 
SlimySnake said:
IF the PS5 is $499, i can easily see the Xbox Series X Selling for $599.

They have a more expensive
- APU - those extra 16 CUs will be at least $20. $40 if costs have doubled since PS4/X1 launch.
- RAM - again 560 Gbps chips are expensive. Add another $20-40 here.
- SSD - 1 TB SSD is going might be more expensive than a 800 GB SSD simply because its bigger. $10-20 here.
- Vapor chamber cooling - After the bloomberg article on PS5 BOM came out, Penello expressed surprised at the PS5's so called expensive cooling solution only costing a few dollars. he dismissed it entirely because he said fancy cooling costs way more than a few dollars. Expect another $15 gap here.

you total all that up, and we are looking at $65-115 difference between the two consoles. even if it is at the lower end around $60, the retail cut on that is going to be far more than what a $499 console's retailer cut would be.

If the bloomberg article is true, and PS5 BOM is $450 for physical edition then i can see Sony launching the Physical edition for a markup of $499 and DE at $399 with MS taking a slightly bigger loss to come in at $499.
Click to expand...
we also heard recently that PS5 APU is giving high yields. That should reduce it's price by few $. However, that Dual Sense controller might level things out.
 
Ptarmiganx2 said:
I think they have provided plenty of examples: the RROD, skipping an entire generation to prepare for the next only to have nothing to show, and changing the narrative constantly to whatever Sony is doing "look we have almost no load times and can stream assets 10x faster the our hardware limitations with mega X velocity architecture 2.0". Sony botched the PS3 release, but after that it's been smooth sailing. Everything we have heard contradicts your assumption that Sony will have a letdown. The dev kits are refined (as numerous programmers have confirmed), Sony has a major collaboration with UE5, and Sony's studios are geographically diverse.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't disagree with where Sony should be as you've presented, but it seems evident to me Sony aren't there.

It is still telling that so close to release PS5 details are scant - no price, no launch lineup, no launch date, no tear down, no clearer gameplay demos, no BC data, nothing about major 3rd party release plans.


Sony have shown more than MS - MS have got themselves into a very poor position now. But by normal standards Sony aren't providing the clear information that should be expected in a normal console launch.

Now some may argue Sony are playing it clever in their competition with MS.

Personally I don't believe that - if Sony are deliberately withholding information out of some desire to just one up MS then they're making a mistake (MS is on it's knees now - that's the time to make sure they don't get back up) and disrespecting their potential customers who want more data now so they can prepare their purchasing intentions

This lack of info is why "insiders" are such big news right now.

As I said though, I don't think Sony are hiding information - I just don't believe they have anything else they can show. If they can't show it - they can't sell it, and that's why I'm anticipating negative news to come from Sony.

What's negative news? For me, an anemic launch lineup is negative news, poor performing multiplats would also be negative news. Lack of supply, a price way above the $500 threshold or extra hidden costs would also be negative news.

Sony isn't in as bad a position as MS right now, but to say Sony is business as usual with such a dirth of information this close to launch still seems naive to me.
 
The next game of Rockstar will looks ridiculous good with the raytracing solutions, just see this graphic programer of Rockstar
making/using its debugging tool, I cannot wait.


 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rust to get next gen patch for X S|X and PS5, previous gen version being discontinued
0
51
cormack12 replied
Sony unveils next-gen RGB mini-LED TV Tech | "OLED Killer?"
2 3
118
7K
dave_d replied
What are your top 3 (non-cross gen) PS5/XSX games this gen?
46
2K
ToneyJ replied
Rocksteady’s Next Batman Game Being Developed Using Unreal Engine 5. Targeting Cross-Gen Launch With PS5, Series S|X, and Next-Gen Consoles!
News Rumor Hype  2
89
4K
Feel Like I'm On 42 replied
Xbox Wants Out of the Console War - (IGN Next-Gen Console Watch Podcast)
2 3 4
194
12K
Viruz replied
Top Bottom