By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
zero129 said:
DonFerrari said:

Still console makers pay a very different price on the GPU part or their APU compared to PC parts.

From the breakdown of PS4 and X1 I remember something like less than 100 USD cost for the GPU. And for this new gen I doubt the cost of GPU for PS5 and XSX is over 200 USD.

So even if it was possible to pay 1/3 the cost for the 1/3 of the power (it isn't, because the chips cost to manufacture doesn't scale linearly, you'll always have the optimum curve where a size and speed will be the most cost efficient and the reduction of any in let's say 50% won't net 50% saving in cost, similarly when going above then a increase in 50% may even be 100% more costly).

So if I had to guess all the saving possibles for Lockhart (cost, not final price since that may be dependent on willingness to take loss)

If remove disc - 30 USD

Lower performance GPU - 50 USD

Less RAM - 50 USD

Slightly less powerfull CPU - 20 USD

So it could undercut XSX by 150 USD. Daniel Ahmad estimate XSX BOM to be between 460 and 520. If we go for the lowest option we could say that Lockhart would cost at least 300 to build plus other costs to ship to retail and their cuts MS to sell it at 299 would need to subside 50 bucks (quite regular sub). So for Series X to sell for the triple it would mean 900 USD (won't happen) and for they to sell for the double it would be 599 (so about 70 of profit). If they just sell for the price of the BOM it would be 300 vs 460 or 35% less (which is already a good saving, I wouldn't buy the low entry because I prefer to have the best performance possible for a reasonable price and saving 150 USD to have 1/3 of the graphic performance even with everything else up to par isn't for me, but sure I can see a lot of people interested in it even more if they use gamepass and xbl subs for a long term contract and person can walk out with console+gp+xbl for 0 upfront payment and perhaps 30-40 USD/month meaning they will have games available for the life of the console basically paying just the subs they would pay anyway and a very small additional monthly cost to pay for the console). Still your 1/3 or 1/2 of the price seems very off the curve.

I see something like this, Lockhart no disc 299 (50 subside), PS5 no disc 399 (100 subside), PS5 with disc 499 (no subside), XSX 549 (no subside).

I think the is something off about that pricing. If the Series S does end up being 299 and Disc-less then the is no way is the PS5 Digital going to be just 100 more then Series S and 100 less then the base PS5 at 499. I could see series S maybe being 299 for a disc version.

Disc is only 30 in cost and I put Sony subsiding 100 for the discless PS5 exactly to combat Series S pricing. But as I said I can be wrong on all 4, but still the price to manufacture Series S likely isn't much less than 150 less than XSX. And mainly that just because the GPU is 1/3 the power doesn't mean it will cost 1/3 to make or will sell for 1/3 the price.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."