Devs react to PS5 specs - Twitter edition

spman2099 · Mar 21, 2020

metalgear89 said:
I think the biggest win with that price is you get in the heads of the masses you have this brand new console at a cheaper price then the competitor. Also the very fact Sony are waiting for ms to announce the price tells me they will price it lower no matter what ms do.

I think we can absolutely be certain that the PS5 won't be more expensive than the XBSX. I am pretty certain of that. I am not sure it means they are looking to come in a hundred dollars under the cost of the XBSX.

Firmus_Anguis said:
A billion dollars is nothing compared to what PS+ generates. Having more users invested in the ecosystem is what generates this revenue.

That is an interesting point. I don't know if it will ultimately bare out, but we will see. I will say this, at $399 I am there day one. They are going to REALLY have to sell me at $499.

Equanimity said:
I don't share the same experience, fortunately. Resetera staff has been rather friendly and accommodating in the past.

I hope they take a second look at my post for their perusal.

I would let it go, my man. Honestly, I agree with your sentiment that the mods here do a good job. I also agree that your post wasn't ban worthy. However, we know that in keeping this place as functional as they do, the mods can sometimes be a little uneven in their application of bans. This is the price we pay to have a gaming forum that isn't overrun with absolute shit. *shrug*

Firmus_Anguis · Mar 21, 2020

Doctor Avatar said:
An 18% difference, and not even in all GPU areas at that, is not an "insane" advantage. Nor is it an "absolute beast" in comparison to PS5.

How do you expect this advantage to manifest in third party games running on XSX and PS5?

Because it isn't enough for a resolution difference, that is for sure. XSX would have to have 44% of an edge to push 4K over 1800p in PS5. It doesn't have that. It doesn't even have half of that advantage. It isn't powerful enough to push a jump in resolution over PS5.

So how you expect this advantage to manifest in games? Any game XSX is running at 4K the PS5 will also be running at 4K. It may manifest as a more dropped frames in heavy scenes, or maybe more of a dip in dynamic resolution in those scenes but outside of a DF analysis are you going to notice much of a difference? And if XSX has worse pop in and texture streaming due to less than half the speed of SSD compared to PS5 on said DF analysis? Which is more important?

I do love how the closest two consoles ever released in the history of gaming is being spun as an "insane" XSX advantage. Spin spin spin spin. 3rd party games will be pretty much indistinguishable in a normal gameplay environment. Which is a good thing - games and services will be the actual difference between the consoles.

It's just embarrassing there is so much spinning going on in Era.

I'm not spinning anything, goddamn it! I don't do that shit, I'm being realistic here. You're just in denial.

I love Playstation, but I think they dropped the ball with their variable frequencies nonsense... If they had a cooling solution that made them have a consistent 3.5 GHz CPU and 2.23 GHz GPU, I'd be ecstatic! I'd even argue they'd have the better overall system (they still might, if the SSD is being properly used).

But the variable frequencies thing just has me really worried. I'm not sure the SSD advantage will manifest itself as clearly with third party games, compared to MS's 3.6-3.8 GHz and their 12 tflops GPU.

The differences won't be earthshattering, but they are a lot bigger than what I was expecting. Exclusives on the PS5 will undoubtedly have an advantage when it comes to game design though; they'll be able to do things that aren't possible on a Series X.

Deleted member 10747 · Mar 21, 2020

Equanimity said:
Thank you for sharing. I really enjoyed LiS2.

I was banned for calling someone's lopsided argument inconsistent. It was perceived as hostility but I completely disagree, and have asked the resetera staff to take another look at it.

Post in question

I know and i agree with your disagreement...... If your post is something ban worthy than a lot of other post in the last couple of days should have banned but magically survived... That's all i am going to say about... Good luck!

Giant Panda · Mar 21, 2020

Coda said:
I don't think anyone is going to pour even more oil into the dumpser fire that Sony set up.

Your hyperbole isn't helpful to anyone.

Mubrik_ · Mar 21, 2020

III-V said:
There was evidence of an oberon model with 16 GB GDDR6 running at 530 GB/s. At this point, they downgraded to 16 GB at 448 GB/s, presumably as one of the cost cutting measures to mitigate the loss they take internally.

Hmm, so even more reason for a lower price point?

What's your estimate on it?

III-V · Mar 21, 2020

Mubrik_ said:
Hmm, so even more reason for a lower price point?

What's your estimate on it?

I am hoping (fingers crossed) for $399 like everyone else :)

I think this entails a $60-100 loss per unit though

Firmus_Anguis · Mar 21, 2020

Manmademan said:
It had a lot less to do with it than many people here assume. Early adopters aren't price sensitive, and casual gamers don't pay attention to console war PR nonsense. The XBO launched in November. It was at price parity with the PS4 by May.

Microsoft removes Kinect from Xbox One, drops price to $399, removes Gold restrictions - Geek.com

Break out your celebratory hats or mourning suit, depending on which side of the fence you sit on. Microsoft has implemented several compromises today to help deal with the incredible sales lead Sony …

www.geek.com

you don't seem to understand the distinction between revenue and profit. I already showed you that of the 20 billion in revenue Sony made in 2018, only 2.8 billion of that was profit. The loss you're proposing comes straight out of that "profit" bucket. It's a very, very big deal.

This may come as a suprise, but consoles prices get lowered throughout the life of the system as different audiences are targeted and the build cost of the machine comes down. No one is implying the PS5 is going to launch and *stay* at $499 through its entire lifespan. That's never happened for any system, Sony or not.

see the above explanation re: revenue and profit.

you're not getting a $399 system from Sony. They're not going to lose $100 per system to stay ahead of a competitor they're outselling by more than 2:1 without bleeding money on price drops.

here's a question for you- the PS4 is still at $299.99 MSRP (though you can find systems and bundles cheaper than this, depending on the retailer). Sony could easily drop the cost to bring in more consumers if it wanted to- so why don't they? Why is the PS4 MSRP still only $100 less than it was at launch, 7 years later?

You can stop with the demeaning attitude. Pricing it at $499, with the competitor launching a "next-gen" system at $299 or less (the Lockhart "leak" nailed everything about the Series X down, in that leak the Lockhart was priced at $249), is a potentially fatal one. They wouldn't want a repeat of the 360 generation.

You mentioned the PS3... Did you forget what it launched at? $499 and $599. That's another mistake they wouldn't want to make according to your logic, and yes, I'm aware of the differences because of inflation. Speaking of inflation, a $100 is a lot less than it was in 2006. It's a loss I think they're willing to take, that's about 77 dollars vs 241, when adjusted for inflation, by 2006 standards.

I think they'll prioritize a higher and faster adaption rate, rather than wait for price-cuts to do the job, especially now that we know the competition has a slightly more powerful console (which'll likely launch att $499). Again, you make my point for me... $2.8 billion in profits is still higher than $1 billion.

We simply disagree. We'll see how things shake out.

Mubrik_ · Mar 21, 2020

III-V said:
I am hoping (fingers crossed) for $399 like everyone else :)

I think this entails a $60-100 loss per unit though

Same, I doubt they'd take a $100 hit

$450 seems fine for me
Competition should be able to force that lower price point somehow.

Deleted member 35631 · Mar 21, 2020

Firmus_Anguis said:
I'm not spinning anything, goddamn it! I don't do that shit, I'm being realistic here. You're just in denial.

I love Playstation, but I think they dropped the ball with their variable frequencies nonsense... If they had a cooling solution that made them have a consistent 3.5 GHz CPU and 2.23 GHz GPU, I'd be ecstatic! I'd even argue they'd have the better overall system (they still might, if the SSD is being properly used).

But the variable frequencies thing just has me really worried. I'm not sure the SSD advantage will manifest itself as clearly with third party games, compared to MS's 3.6-3.8 GHz and their 12 tflops GPU.

The differences won't be earthshattering, but they are a lot bigger than what I was expecting. Exclusives on the PS5 will undoubtedly have an advantage when it comes to game design though; they'll be able to do things that aren't possible on a Series X.

They have said that the variable frequencies don't work like that! Please read the euro gamer article which puts Mark Cerny's words into letters so it's easier to understand when reading.

Also, if you run tetris on PS5 or XSX you are not using all the power, so you don't need the higher frequencies.

Also, if a game is using the GPU heavily, but not the CPU, the remaining "power" of the CPU can be transferred to the GPU, and viceversa.

People need to understand that the PS5 works very differently than any other thing out there. You can't make comparisons, because even if Mark is using regular terms like variable frequency, it doesn't work like you are used to. He is doing things differently, he is innovating in many ways.

amstradcpc · Mar 21, 2020

Manmademan said:
The PS5 is a ridiculously powerful system, regardless of what the XsX is doing. It is not going to be $399. $399 would place it as the cheapest Sony system (adjusted for inflation) they've EVER made in history, while also being the most powerful system they've ever made relative to what is available on the market. It's not happening.

and Stadia's 10.7 TF number is GCN, vs. RDNA 2.0. The PS5 is VASTLY more powerful than the Stadia is.

completing the list from another post:

PS3 - GPU 258mm^2 + CPU 235mm^2 = 493mm^2
360 - GPU (with EDRAM) 262mm^2 + CPU 176mm^2 = 438mm^2
PS4 - APU - 348mm^2
One - APU - 363mm^2
Pro - APU - 320mm^2
X - APU - 360mm^2
PS5 - APU - 300 mm^2
XSX - APU - 360 mm^2

Sony clearly going less powerful with each new console out. They went cheap, and for the time they launch a 36 CU GPU will be low tier in the PC space.

Manmademan · Mar 21, 2020

Firmus_Anguis said:
You can stop with the demeaning attitude.

In no way am I being demeaning here. Explaining there is a different between revenue and profit is simple fact here.

Pricing it at $499, with the competitor launching a "next-gen" system at $299 or less (the Lockhart "leak" nailed everything about the Series X down, in that leak the Lockhart was priced at $249), is a potentially fatal one. They wouldn't want a repeat of the 360 generation.

you're greatly overrating the impact price has here, ignoring once again that price isn't the primary driver for console early adoption. Ecosystem is.

You mentioned the PS3... Did you forget what it launched at? $499 and $599. That's another mistake they wouldn't want to make according to your logic, and yes, I'm aware of the differences because of inflation.

it doesn't seem you are, otherwise quoting a system that was priced at over $750 US in current dollars isn't something you would do. That system was priced WILDLY out of reach of the typical consumer. a $499 PS5 wouldn't be, so the comparison is nonsensical. And the "$499" PS3 existed as little more than a marketing bullet point. Virtually no one carried it and it was quickly and quietly removed from production by Sony.

I think they'll prioritize a higher and faster adaption rate, rather than wait for price-cuts to do the job,

once again- the production rate of the PS5 is fixed. Cutting the price won't allow them to sell any more units than they would NOT cutting the price- this will be true for at least 18 months, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it go longer than this.

We simply disagree. We'll see how things shake out.

We disagree certainly. But that doesn't mean that bad arguments won't be pointed out when they occur.

Firmus_Anguis · Mar 21, 2020

RCU005 said:
They have said that the variable frequencies don't work like that! Please read the euro gamer article which puts Mark Cerny's words into letters so it's easier to understand when reading.

Also, if you run tetris on PS5 or XSX you are not using all the power, so you don't need the higher frequencies.

Also, if a game is using the GPU heavily, but not the CPU, the remaining "power" of the CPU can be transferred to the GPU, and viceversa.

People need to understand that the PS5 works very differently than any other thing out there. You can't make comparisons, because even if Mark is using regular terms like variable frequency, it doesn't work like you are used to. He is doing things differently, he is innovating in many ways.

What about games that push the limit? How many games (%-wise) will push that limit? How many will be GPU bound? I really want to hear from the developers themselves.

Because otherwise, we won't really know until these consoles are out and the comparisons start.

OldBenKenobi · Mar 21, 2020

Man I cannot wait for these new consoles. I am a PC guy now but I am most likely getting a Ps5 for those exclusives.

I would love to get an XSX too but I feel with my current PC and upgrading my 2070 to a 3xxx series card should be fine with Gamepass on PC. Already have two Samsung 970 NVME drives on my pc so I should be ok on that front.

I personally don't like to get into the fanboy wars around here because I feel like we as gamers are so lucky to be getting this huge jump in technology compared to this current gen. Hell, I am just excited how these new consoles will push PC gaming even further.

Equanimity · Mar 21, 2020

If anyone wants to share additional tweets that I should add, let me know.

spman2099 said:
I would let it go, my man. Honestly, I agree with your sentiment that the mods here do a good job. I also agree that your post wasn't ban worthy. However, we know that in keeping this place as functional as they do, the mods can sometimes be a little uneven in their application of bans. This is the price we pay to have a gaming forum that isn't overrun with absolute shit. *shrug*

Yeah, it's a small price to pay but feels kind of personal when you believe you're not in the wrong. I know it isn't, but you get what I'm saying.

I'll take your suggestion.

Seshumaru said:
I know and i agree with your disagreement...... If your post is something ban worthy than a lot of other post in the last couple of days should have banned but magically survived... That's all i am going to say about... Good luck!

Yeah, I'm just as baffled by it as you are. I'll just leave it at that, don't want to derail this thread.

amstradcpc · Mar 21, 2020

RCU005 said:
Also, if you run tetris on PS5 or XSX you are not using all the power, so you don't need the higher frequencies.

Is nor like that, so if you run Tetris clocks are at 100mhz?. ;)
a simple's game transistor occupancy is small so it will run at 3,5-2,23 without a sweat. The thing is that when a complex game that gets almost all registers, shader units, caches, cpu vector units...busy is when keeping those clocks make the apu go a tpu higher than the limit and is then when the clock reduction start.

Firmus_Anguis · Mar 21, 2020

Manmademan said:
In no way am I being demeaning here. Explaining there is a different between revenue and profit is simple fact here.

you're greatly overrating the impact price has here, ignoring once again that price isn't the primary driver for console early adoption. Ecosystem is.

it doesn't seem you are, otherwise quoting a system that was priced at over $750 US in current dollars isn't something you would do. That system was priced WILDLY out of reach of the typical consumer. a $499 PS5 wouldn't be, so the comparison is nonsensical. And the "$499" PS3 existed as little more than a marketing bullet point. Virtually no one carried it and it was quickly and quietly removed from production by Sony.

once again- the production rate of the PS5 is fixed. Cutting the price won't allow them to sell any more units than they would NOT cutting the price- this will be true for at least 18 months, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it go longer than this.

We disagree certainly. But that doesn't mean that bad arguments won't be pointed out when they occur.

Implying that I would be surprised about price-drops throughout a products life-cycle occuring, isn't demeaning? You're being obtuse.

Again, I'm talking about the losses they were willing to take, with a much more expensive console (even without adjusting for inflation). By comparison, a $100 dollars today, is nothing.

Sony have never been better positioned to take a loss. A huge userbase buying and investing in your ecosystem will unquestionably mitigate any minor loss at the beginning of a generation. It's not like that loss will last the entire generation either!

Wages, at least in the US (which obviously is a big market for Sony, eventhough it isn't their biggest), haven't gone up substantially. It's a very price-sensitive market. They'll consider that too.

The lower price would make it more attractive in the eyes of the consumer, especially when compared to the competition. It has nothing to do with the amounts produced, it's also about consumers not choosing the competition over your product.

I still think the PS5 will sell amazingly well, I'll certainly buy one, but you're completely ignoring my points about MS's strategy (even though Sony is absolutely still the one to beat).

I think that's another factor, that'll ultimately push the PS5 to $399. I, personally, don't give a damn how cheap or expensive it is. I'm one of those people who would've paid for a monsterously speced $699 console... But this is what I believe will happen.
It's not faulty logic just because you disagree with it.

-Le Monde- · Mar 21, 2020

Hoo-doo said:
This. Now it's revealed that it's going to be a super capable machine we can finally await info drops about the real interesting stuff like the OS, the controller and the damn games. Can't wait!

Hope we get paddles on the ds5.

III-V · Mar 21, 2020

Mubrik_ said:
Same, I doubt they'd take a $100 hit

$450 seems fine for me
Competition should be able to force that lower price point somehow.

They have taken much bigger losses in the past with much fewer revenue streams available for recover. I am hopefully optimistic the shareholders will make a forward thinking decision.

Deleted member 30987 · Mar 21, 2020

When MS announces Lockhart this is when people will really get disappointed and heads will roll.
If the weak box is a reality, I will lough hard. Company making a living on selling Fiats advertises Ferrari as if it cost the same as their core product.

mentallyinept · Mar 21, 2020

amstradcpc said:
completing the list from another post:

PS3 - GPU 258mm^2 + CPU 235mm^2 = 493mm^2
360 - GPU (with EDRAM) 262mm^2 + CPU 176mm^2 = 438mm^2
PS4 - APU - 348mm^2
One - APU - 363mm^2
Pro - APU - 320mm^2
X - APU - 360mm^2
PS5 - APU - 300 mm^2
XSX - APU - 360 mm^2

Sony clearly going less powerful with each new console out. They went cheap, and for the time they launch a 36 CU GPU will be low tier in the PC space.

How are you calculating the PS5 die size here?

amstradcpc · Mar 21, 2020

mentallyinept said:
How are you calculating the PS5 die size here?

By Oberon leak.

mentallyinept · Mar 21, 2020

amstradcpc said:
By Oberon leak.

Ah OK, thanks.

Deleted member 35631 · Mar 21, 2020

albz74 said:
When MS announces Lockhart this is when people will really get disappointed and heads will roll.
If the weak box is a reality, I will lough hard. Company making a living on selling Fiats advertises Ferrari as if it cost the same as their core product.

I personally think that it doesn't exist. It might have existed as a concept, but not anymore. IF they are doing it because they know that the PS5 will be cheaper, then fuck Microsoft! That would mean they just want to be cheaper, no matter what. At least if the console would be like 10TF, but if it's true that Lockhart is much inferior, even than Xbox One X (which seems ridiculous, and the reason I think it doesn't exist, at least as the rumors say).

Pricing the XSX priced at $399 and having a bigger loss, would be a better strategy in the LONG run. The XSX would fly off the shelves and they'd recuperate the loss with games and the eventual reduction of costs.

Anyway, if Lockhart does exist, it's going to be worse for Microsoft. XSX will never be able to demonstrate all its power, third parties will also be limited in a way, and Sony first party games will only have more chance to shine. I'm not saying Xbox game would be bad, but they would never be made with the huge potential that XSX has.

Ushay · Mar 21, 2020

Firmus_Anguis said:
I'm not spinning anything, goddamn it! I don't do that shit, I'm being realistic here. You're just in denial.

I love Playstation, but I think they dropped the ball with their variable frequencies nonsense... If they had a cooling solution that made them have a consistent 3.5 GHz CPU and 2.23 GHz GPU, I'd be ecstatic! I'd even argue they'd have the better overall system (they still might, if the SSD is being properly used).

But the variable frequencies thing just has me really worried. I'm not sure the SSD advantage will manifest itself as clearly with third party games, compared to MS's 3.6-3.8 GHz and their 12 tflops GPU.

The differences won't be earthshattering, but they are a lot bigger than what I was expecting. Exclusives on the PS5 will undoubtedly have an advantage when it comes to game design though; they'll be able to do things that aren't possible on a Series X.

I agree here.
I still don't get reasoning why they couldn't just lock the frequencies. What was the benefit? And don't friggin me it's 'genius' because it ain't, has compromise written all over it. What is brilliant is the Tempest Engine and the SSD innovations.

PJV3 · Mar 21, 2020

Ushay said:
I agree here.
I still don't get reasoning why they couldn't just lock the frequencies. What was the benefit? And don't friggin me it's 'genius' because it ain't, has compromise written all over it. What is brilliant is the Tempest Engine and the SSD innovations.

I have somehow managed to forget the github steppings stuff.
Wasn't this solution being developed from the start, hence this fancy cooling solution etc.

OnPorpoise · Mar 21, 2020

III-V said:
There was evidence of an oberon model with 16 GB GDDR6 running at 530 GB/s. At this point, they downgraded to 16 GB at 448 GB/s, presumably as one of the cost cutting measures to mitigate the loss they take internally.

I really wish they'd reconsider going back with 530 GB/s, but given the overall higher BOM of this upcoming gen and the pricing situation they'll find themselves in between XSX and Lockhart, it makes sense they'd cut costs where they can.

PsyDec · Mar 21, 2020

Firmus_Anguis said:
But the variable frequencies thing just has me really worried. I'm not sure the SSD advantage will manifest itself as clearly with third party games, compared to MS's 3.6-3.8 GHz and their 12 tflops GPU.

The differences won't be earthshattering, but they are a lot bigger than what I was expecting. Exclusives on the PS5 will undoubtedly have an advantage when it comes to game design though; they'll be able to do things that aren't possible on a Series X.

I think this is a good way to phrase it. I think the PS5's first party line-up have a better chance at a bigger scope. Will this scope allow for totally unprecedented games to exist on the PS5 and not XSX? No. It's not to say XSX wont have bigger scope, because both these SSD's are fantastic. But in terms of performance (frame rates included) and looks on first and third party across the GPU, CPU, memory bandwidth and higher SMT clocks, the XSX has an unquestionable advantage in that department. Likely similar to the gaps We see pretty consistently between the Xbox one X and PS4 Pro.

Giant Panda · Mar 21, 2020

Nobunny said:
I really wish they'd reconsider going back with 530 GB/s, but given the overall higher BOM of this upcoming gen and the pricing situation they'll find themselves in between XSX and Lockhart, it makes sense they'd cut costs where they can.

Maybe RDNA2 turned out to be less bandwidth hungry than expected, making it safe to cut it? If they had gone with 16gb/s chips they would have been 512 GB/s I believe which would have been nice speed. I'd be curious to know how much of a price difference that would have been from 14 gb/s.

amstradcpc · Mar 21, 2020

Nobunny said:
I really wish they'd reconsider going back with 530 GB/s, but given the overall higher BOM of this upcoming gen and the pricing situation they'll find themselves in between XSX and Lockhart, it makes sense they'd cut costs where they can.

If they would have gone bigger with a wider bus they could get a bigger bandwidth as XSX with the same GDDR6 current modules, but Ryan and the new CEOs thought 300 mm2 was already enough.

Deleted member 30987 · Mar 21, 2020

Firmus_Anguis said:
The variable frequencies don't inspire confidence either. I guess we'll see how it all works out, but I thought they'd be a lot more similar.

Why ? That's the way PC GPUs run for years and I dont see any problems with that ? Technology is there, in use, and doesnt cause much if any trouble.
The problem I see here is that Sony threw a presentation aimed at devs, to wide public. Lots of confusion, things untold which are non-issue really if You know a little more.
It shouldnt be confusing to normal people at all. And only little concerning.
In real world Series X is and will be faster machine no doubt about it, but I really would like to see if this is a machine that is going to be a base one for MS.
Which a.t.m I really doubt taking into account insider news about the other being in planning at least, and assuming high cost of BOM for Series X doesnt bode well for the mass market entry prices.
Add to that the fact that there will inevitably be PS5 Pro which will beat both PS5 and Series X , so all this really doesnt matter unless You always want to have the fastest machine on the market. And in such cases, I would recommend PC, that already is and will be even faster than both new consoles.

alstrike · Mar 21, 2020

Manmademan said:
Right. It doesn't make any sense. And I went back and edited in the 2018 FY numbers. Sony made 20 billion in revenue but only 2.8 billion of that was operating profit.

a $100 loss on 10 million systems that would have sold out anyway loses over 30% of profit for the year. If Sony sells 15 million units, they lose 1.5 billion. Over half of all profit. For absolutely no gain at all.

Now imagine 40-50% of those 10-15 million users buy also a year of PSN+, it softens "the blow" quite a bit.

Manmademan · Mar 21, 2020

alstrike said:
Now imagine 40-50% of those 10-15 million users buy also a year of PSN+, it softens "the blow" quite a bit.

It's important you keep up here.

That 10-15 million units in the first year were *Selling regardless*. There is no increase in revenue and increasing the amount of units to sell is impossible regardless of demand.

Early adopters are also the same people that already own PS4s and likely PS+. The uptick from new users buying into PS+ that don't already have it is near zero.

The 2.8 Billion revenue figure also came in 2018, which was a record high. 2019 was lower- 18.72 Billion compared to just over 20B in 2018.

Taking a $100 loss to hardware in the first year or even two years does literally nothing but devastate Sony's profitability. You gain no additional sales over not doing a price cut and gain zero new subscriptions.

KORNdog · Mar 21, 2020

PsyDec said:
I think this is a good way to phrase it. I think the PS5's first party line-up have a better chance at a bigger scope. Will this scope allow for totally unprecedented games to exist on the PS5 and not XSX? No. It's not to say XSX wont have bigger scope, because both these SSD's are fantastic. But in terms of performance (frame rates included) and looks on first and third party across the GPU, CPU, memory bandwidth and higher SMT clocks, the XSX has an unquestionable advantage in that department. Likely similar to the gaps We see pretty consistently between the Xbox one X and PS4 Pro.

I'm not convinced the TF advantage will actually result in a lot of noticeable differences in third party games at all. They'll be smaller than the pro and X currently are and even those are in the realms of insignificant. We already know how third party developers choose to prioritise things between the pro and x. Xbox will likely push for full native 4k and full 60fps because it's an easier thing to push for on their hardware. And on PS5 you'll likely get some dynamic resolution system that is literally impossible to notice is dropping below 4k in gameplay to maintain that 60fps. PS5 might have Less pop-in due to the faster SSD. but again. They'll be insignificant sorts of differences I think. Games will likely share the same assets (like the do now) share the same effects (like the do now) and maybe one will be able to draw in slightly more foliage or something minor like that. Third party devs aren't going to put the time in to take advantage of either system. It'll be basic tweaks to Res and frame rate and that's it.

Exclusive wise, from what I understand. MS will have 15% more GPU power to play with to make games look nicer. And Sony has 130% more SSD speed to play with (which might result in some games you can only ever see on PS5)

I think if this is how things pan out. MS are going to struggle to justify a likely higher price point for results that aren't super obvious. They couldn't with the X afterall. Sony just need to show that the new COD or AC looks and performs almost identically while sticking a lower price tag on the PS5 and it'll be market leader again imo. But who knows. Maybe those 2 tf's are more significant than the experts are claiming they are.

Deleted member 30987 · Mar 21, 2020

Firmus_Anguis said:
I don't it's insane to sell at a loss. The PS5 BOM is reportedly $450, with the final cost ending up at around $499. Taking a $100 loss isn't unheard of, especially when the PS3 lost over double that amount in 2006.

Man, wake up, it was 14 years ago !! never going to happen again. This machine is going to cost 499 minimum. Series X no less, so if You were in for a little price, You better prepare for a big disappointment.

Deleted member 51539 · Mar 21, 2020

amstradcpc said:
completing the list from another post:

PS3 - GPU 258mm^2 + CPU 235mm^2 = 493mm^2
360 - GPU (with EDRAM) 262mm^2 + CPU 176mm^2 = 438mm^2
PS4 - APU - 348mm^2
One - APU - 363mm^2
Pro - APU - 320mm^2
X - APU - 360mm^2
PS5 - APU - 300 mm^2
XSX - APU - 360 mm^2

Sony clearly going less powerful with each new console out. They went cheap, and for the time they launch a 36 CU GPU will be low tier in the PC space.

Both consoles are using GPUs that are more powerful than anything from AMD. If there is an AMD GPU that blows the PS5's out of the water at year's end, it will also blow the XSX's.

It's also a little silly to compare chip area. Just compare the OG PS4 and Xbox One.

alstrike · Mar 21, 2020

Manmademan said:
It's important you keep up here.

You could take your abysmal financial advice and just f*ck off.

Manmademan · Mar 21, 2020

albz74 said:
Man, wake up, it was 14 years ago !! never going to happen again. This machine is going to cost 499 minimum. Series X no less, so if You were in for a little price, You better prepare for a big disappointment.

The ps4 was clearly a budget machine manufactured when Sony was at a low point.

The thing had a netbook processor WORSE than the one in the cell, and that was 2006 hardware. No BC whatsoever, off the shelf hard drive, standard cooling, and couldn't even read CDs. Still, it would sell for $450 in current dollars, not $399.

The PS5 is using a chip as strong as the entire jaguar core in the ps4 *just for audio*, has a CPU and GPU competitive with top tier PC parts, a custom hard drive so fast it doesn't exist for PC yet, enhanced hardware BC solutions for ps4 titles along with all the associated testing, and a cooling solution several times more expensive than what typically finds its way into consoles.

And people think it will launch $50 CHEAPER than the ps4 did? To be the cheapest system Sony has ever made? Insanity

AllChan7 · Mar 21, 2020

If the BOM is $450, I don't expect it to cost $399. I expect $449-$499

Considering how much a PC of similar performance might be, I think $499 is a fantastic deal either way

modiz · Mar 21, 2020

first year PS4 owners ended up spending on average $1600 (excluding the console purchase) until may last year, so by next may that number should be above $1800, sony should be able to afford taking the hit to sell it at $399, alternatively they can sell it bundled with a launch game for $449 (demon's souls remake maybe?), but i feel that $x49 isnt a good price point.

Manmademan · Mar 21, 2020

AllChan7 said:
If the BOM is $450, I don't expect it to cost $399. I expect $449-$499

Considering how much a PC of similar performance might be, I think $499 is a fantastic deal either way

BOM is an estimate, but it doesn't take into account cost of packaging, shipping, or marketing the thing either.

This seems like a $499 machine to me, give or take a few dollars.

asd202 · Mar 21, 2020

If both consoles will be $499 than MS if definitely taking a bigger loss which honestly I find interesting. I think that we could see X costing more than $499 with lockhart and all.

modiz · Mar 21, 2020

asd202 said:
If both consoles will be $499 than MS if definitely taking a bigger loss which honestly I find interesting. I think that we could see X costing more than $499 with lockhart and all.

if PS5's BoM really is $450 i anticipate Series X's BoM to be at around $490, it would be a pretty significant loss to release it at $499, espeically for a premium sku which is usually sold at a profit.

AllChan7 · Mar 21, 2020

Manmademan said:
BOM is an estimate, but it doesn't take into account cost of packaging, shipping, or marketing the thing either.

This seems like a $499 machine to me, give or take a few dollars.

$499 is reasonable and I think most everyone will be okay with it.

OnPorpoise · Mar 21, 2020

Giant Panda said:
Maybe RDNA2 turned out to be less bandwidth hungry than expected, making it safe to cut it? If they had gone with 16gb/s chips they would have been 512 GB/s I believe which would have been nice speed. I'd be curious to know how much of a price difference that would have been from 14 gb/s.

On paper it seems less than ideal, but maybe in real-world scenarios it just wasn't worth the added cost. It's not like they didn't tested a fair amount of configurations, so I'm sure the performance can't be too bad.

amstradcpc said:
If they would have gone bigger with a wider bus they could get a bigger bandwidth as XSX with the same GDDR6 current modules, but Ryan and the new CEOs thought 300 mm2 was already enough.

I'd imagine the PS5's BOM was also influenced by a next-gen PSVR. If you're trying to differentiate yourself from the competition, it might make more sense to forgo a beefier GPU/ram setup and instead refocus your silicon budget for things that bolster your VR product while potentially being easier to cost reduce.

asd202 · Mar 21, 2020

modiz said:
if PS5's BoM really is $450 i anticipate Series X's BoM to be at around $490, it would be a pretty significant loss to release it at $499, espeically for a premium sku which is usually sold at a profit.

Well if Zhuge calculation are correct then X has to be at least $599 to be sold at a profit. I don't think that's happening it's either going to be $499 or $549 IMO for PS5 on the other hand I expect $449-$499.

Deleted member 23046 · Mar 21, 2020

AllChan7 said:
$499 is reasonable and I think most everyone will be okay with it.

The price of both console won't be related to the success of each one the first year because the console market isn't a baseball match or a zero sum game (especially during a launch period). Even at 500$ a PS5 would fly of the shelves, the question is more at which pacing and sustainability now that an economic recessions is pointing (though it is more situational than structural) ans how it will be sponged, also how prices will be soften for each countries.

Chaos Legion · Mar 21, 2020

Firmus_Anguis said:
I'm not spinning anything, goddamn it! I don't do that shit, I'm being realistic here. You're just in denial.

I love Playstation, but I think they dropped the ball with their variable frequencies nonsense... If they had a cooling solution that made them have a consistent 3.5 GHz CPU and 2.23 GHz GPU, I'd be ecstatic! I'd even argue they'd have the better overall system (they still might, if the SSD is being properly used).

But the variable frequencies thing just has me really worried. I'm not sure the SSD advantage will manifest itself as clearly with third party games, compared to MS's 3.6-3.8 GHz and their 12 tflops GPU.

The differences won't be earthshattering, but they are a lot bigger than what I was expecting. Exclusives on the PS5 will undoubtedly have an advantage when it comes to game design though; they'll be able to do things that aren't possible on a Series X.

PsyDec said:
I think this is a good way to phrase it. I think the PS5's first party line-up have a better chance at a bigger scope. Will this scope allow for totally unprecedented games to exist on the PS5 and not XSX? No. It's not to say XSX wont have bigger scope, because both these SSD's are fantastic. But in terms of performance (frame rates included) and looks on first and third party across the GPU, CPU, memory bandwidth and higher SMT clocks, the XSX has an unquestionable advantage in that department. Likely similar to the gaps We see pretty consistently between the Xbox one X and PS4 Pro.

These are really good posts. I agree completely and think that's the reality will be faced with.

modiz · Mar 21, 2020

asd202 said:
Well if Zhuge calculation are correct then X has to be at least $599 to be sold at a profit. I don't think that's happening it's either going to be $499 or $549 IMO for PS5 on the other hand I expect $449-$499.

I can see the series X at $549.

PS5 due to being a single sku can probably take a bigger loss than what MS can with the series X, which is why i think they can go for either $449 bundled or $399 without a game.

PsyDec · Mar 21, 2020

VinFTW said:
Pretty damning not a single 3P dev has come forward defending/praising the Series X architecture and/or software

Richard Geldreich on Twitter

“@dubeg_ I've only paid close attention to the data compression engines on both systems so far. Microsoft's BCPack system will likely be very strong. The MS engineers behind this tech are very smart.”

twitter.com

Richard Geldreich on Twitter

“@dubeg_ If Sony only has Kraken, with no good GPU texture encoder like BCPack or crunch etc. in its SDK, then MS will have a great advantage on how many compressed GPU texels they can deliver per second into RAM.”

twitter.com

Urgh · Mar 21, 2020

modiz said:
if PS5's BoM really is $450 i anticipate Series X's BoM to be at around $490, it would be a pretty significant loss to release it at $499, espeically for a premium sku which is usually sold at a profit.

Cerny spent an hour talking about how their GPU/CPU was a better choice, not a compromise. If they went with it because it's cheaper then he's been lying to you and we have no reason to trust his word on anything.

So because we do trust Cerny, then the ps5 is the more expensive machine because of the gamechanging SSD and expensive cooling.

Devs react to PS5 specs - Twitter edition

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

Election Thread Watcher

Account closed at user request

One Winged Slayer

One Winged Slayer

User requested account closure

Account closed at user request

Election Thread Watcher

Account closed at user request

Election Thread Watcher

Tries to be a positive role model

Election Thread Watcher

Enlightened

Tries to be a positive role model

Enlightened

Account closed at user request

The Wise Ones