PS5 release date predicted...

[Pemalite]

EricHiggin said:

Pemalite said:

And the Playstation 3 was also super expensive to manufacture. - Remember how we were expected to get a second job to pay for it? 
The days where Sony and Microsoft were willing to eat hundreds of dollars in hardware costs are over. - For one... Sony can't afford to do that.
TSMC's 12nm node uses a 16nm BEOL... And thus had better outperform Samsung's 14nm node which has a 20nm BEOL, highly doubt it will be used for GPU's or APU's though.
You are correct that the Playstation 4 and Playstation 4 Pro is built on TSMC's 16nm process.

Yes PS3 was really really costly, but much of that was due to cell, plus adding a GPU late in the development, as well as PS2 internal hardware for BC. None of that should be an issue with PS5 if they stick with x86. The extra cost would go into larger power supply, heatsink, fan, shell size, box size, shipping, etc. All which should add some cost, but nothing even close to what PS3 did. PS5 could launch for $449 or even $499 and it wouldn't be that big of a deal. $399 is the sweet spot clearly, but at that price PS can't even keep consoles in stock, so charging a little more won't hurt them, so no subsidy necessary.

The 12nm node was just a what if. For all we know 7nm ends up on target, or maybe PS doesn't need to or doesn't want to launch before 7nm is ready and nothing may change that. If Pro is the best you can get from PS until 2020, I think many of us may have to upgrade to Pro to stay at 1080p(900p). That may be what PS wants or plans on anyway.

The Cell was 235.48mm2 and the GPU was even larger at 258mm2. The GPU was larger than the Cell and thus likely more expensive to manufacture and thus your assertion that the PS3 costs were high due to the cell is highly incorrect.
Both chips were fairly conservative in terms of size... But having two moderately sized chips is still expensive.

The Radeon x1900 XTX for instance was a *big* 352 mm2 at the same node and nVidia took it a step farther with the Geforce 8800 Ultra at a whopping 484mm2.

The Xbox 360's chips were smaller and thus cheaper to make than that and it was still a loss leader.

In the end, you are only agreeing with my point anyway, that the days of consoles taking losses on console hardware is over.
Sony is to broke to do it, Microsoft's shareholders aren't happy with it.

EricHiggin said:

Pemalite said:

Makes no difference.

Well if PS and XB say they need something by this date at the very latest and AMD can't make that happen then it would definitely make a difference. I'm not saying they wouldn't give AMD time and wait a bit, but you can only wait so long, and at what cost.

AMD doesn't jump on a new node because a "bright and shiny" new console platform is about to be released. They do it when it makes sense and that is usually when it's financially feasible to do so.
If the hardware isn't available to kick start a new generation, then we will not get a new console generation, it really is that simple.

You forget that AMD's primary market is the PC and not the consoles.
Consoles are just leveraging the massive amounts of R&D and development that is done for the PC market to lower costs and development time. (Which is why you will never see fully custom processors in a console ever again.)
The downside to that is that consoles need to stick with the PC's hardware development cadence.