I think one could argue that there has been set a pattern when taking into account factors from across the entire console reveall and E3 period, that might point to the the notion of MS indeed having bad yields on their new console APU, but yet choosing not to downclock rather take the hit on bad yields and pass the cost across to early adopters of the the system with a high price.
I mean, take a look at a few things:
- the XB1 was revealed and then the rumours came through about bad yields, due to eSRAM, and the potential for a downclock to improve yields.
- we heard that the chip is a huge piece of silicon, which would of course imply bad yields at first, not only because it would mean less chips per wafer but also because the high transistor density of eSRAM would make it more prone to defects that would compromise the usability of the entire APU.
- we've seen the box, and it is indeed monstrously big. Especially compared to the PS4, which many would have expected to be bigger not only because of the bigger GPU but also because of the GDDR5 which can run a little hot at high frequencies. The size of the XB1 box could a sign that more cooling is required compared to Sony, because the processors are running hotter, further subtantiating the large chip rumour.
- games were shown at E3 with many not yet running on actual hardware, which could be considered strange considering how close to release we are.
- after many expecting a lower price than Sony due to GDDR5, MS announced a price $100 greater than their competitor. Which some might argue is function of the cost of Kinect, but the very fact that we know Sony's RAM will command an $80-100 premium on the BOM, it would point to the fact that MS' APU is likely currently costing them considerably more than Sony's is, despite Sony's containing more GPU functional units.
- the rumours, whispering and retail musing here on Gaff, pointing to Sony being able to allocate and produce considerably more consoles than MS for launch, might also be seen as a sign that MS is having yield issues which is restricting the number of consoles they can physically build.
It is important to note that both console providers chose an APU single-chip device this time, as opposed to the dual chip designs of previous generations. One would thus intuit that a single-chip design should entail lower costs, both in fabrication, motherboard design, cooling, assembly, shipping and handling. It is then quite telling that MS decided to announce a console that is considerably more expensive than most previous gen consoles at launch, where Sony went for a reasonable price that could have even been up to $100 cheaper had they decided to opt for less GDDR5 ram or even far cheaper DDR3.
I think all these things could be seen to tell a story, provided one is prepared to attempt to read between the proverbial lines as they say. It could all be nonsense, but where there is smoke there is usually fire in my opinion.
