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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Discussing PS4 hardware and manufacturing price

green_sky on 10 June 2012
drkohler said:
green_sky said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

 

I will post what I have posted in a previous PS4 specs-thread (I've changed it slightly) but this time include my predicted price:

 

Hardware Specifications
Central Processing Unit (CPU) QC @ 3.4ghz (Not CELL)
Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) HD 7850 2gb vram
Memory  4GB min (inc 2gb vram)
Storage Capacity 320gb/500gb 

 

This can run BF3 on Ultra at 1080p + 60fps, considering it's a closed system that'll be well optimized for.
CPU = £75
GPU = £80
RAM = £25
Storage = £25/£50
Other parts = £80
Total manufacturing cost = £285/310
Retail prices:
320GB PS4 =  £299 ($349) 
500GB PS4 =  £349 ($399 note that these are not direct conversions of currency, 'Merica gets things cheaper)
 
A moderately powerful console, definitely a big jump over this gen, sold for a profitable £299/£349. Perfect.
Edit: CPU price has been adjusted

 

I like these specs and price :)

Lol.. Just lol. Where do you people get these completely dumb ideas from?

A (technology) company that wants to stay in business has to sell its products at following margins when entering the market:

If you gadget is a high-end product selling in small quantities: 400-500% of manufacturing costs.

If your gadget is a moderately selling product: 250-300% of manufacturing costs.

If you gadget is a general product: 150-200% of manufacturing costs.

Anybody thinking that Sony will start manufacturing a product with $100 CPU and $100 GPU is seriously deluded. Whatever Sony is planning to build (possibly by mid 2013), they will have to wait until manufacturing costs have come down, way below what is suggested here. TSMC is not ready yet with 28nm, GF is struggling even with 32nm yields, and other fabs are wild guesses.

 

Glad i made you double lol. Honestly though my talking parrot was hinting those specs. So i had to believe him. 



Around the Network
Andrespetmonkey on 10 June 2012
drkohler said:

Lol.. Just lol. Where do you people get these completely dumb ideas from?

A (technology) company that wants to stay in business has to sell its products at following margins when entering the market:

If you gadget is a high-end product selling in small quantities: 400-500% of manufacturing costs.

If your gadget is a moderately selling product: 250-300% of manufacturing costs.

If you gadget is a general product: 150-200% of manufacturing costs.

Anybody thinking that Sony will start manufacturing a product with $100 CPU and $100 GPU is seriously deluded. Whatever Sony is planning to build (possibly by mid 2013), they will have to wait until manufacturing costs have come down, way below what is suggested here. TSMC is not ready yet with 28nm, GF is struggling even with 32nm yields, and other fabs are wild guesses.


Wait, you do realise many if not most consoles sell at a loss in the first couple years right? Selling the actual unit is only one source of income, it's supposed to be made up for by software sales and other paid services like netflix and PS+

E.g PS3 cost $800 to manufacture, sold for $600 in 2006 and I believe 360 cost around $500 to manufacture back in 05, but sold for less. I may have to double check on 360 though.

Maybe I've misunderstood your post, could you explain?



My Music

Gilgamesh on 10 June 2012

I'm happy with $399 being the MAX price, I'd definitely buy the console at that price on launch. But since there's like 100 PS3 games I need to play it could be years till I get a PS4.



Turkish on 11 June 2012
thismeintiel said:
NintendoPie said:
JoeTheBro said:

The PS Vita is the closest thing to proof we have that the PS4 will be a powerhouse.

 

I'd have to predict a starting price of $450 with bleeding edge power. Sony will use modified off the shelf components to keep costs down and keep it cheap. They will make a very small profit on each system sold. BC will be a "coming soon" feature through emulation.

 

Hopefully whatever specific components they go with are optimized for 3D.

The PSVita doesn't tell you much about the PS4. The Vita is an update to a hand-held console, the PS4 is an update to an already strong home console. I doubt we'll see that much of a difference from PS3 to PS4.

Yes, but the PSP was a strong handheld the time it came out, too.  Even so, Sony didn't sacrifice power when it came to the Vita. I doubt they will with the PS4, either.

@ OP

I hope they use some hybrid of the Cell so that BC for the PS3 is an option.  However, if they go with already existing CPUs to save cost, they had better put in PS1 BC (pretty obvious they will have this) and PS2 BC (not so obvious.)  I really don't want 3 Playstation consoles hogging up space in my entertainment stand.  I also expect at least 4GB of RAM, VRAM included. And I'm guessing it will launch with at least a 320GB HDD in it, but most likely a 500GB one. They will definitely be sticking with Blu-ray.  So, it will most likely be a 8x or 12x drive, which will be awesome for load time reduction.

AS for cost, I expect the PS4 will be launching for $400-$450.  They will probably be breaking even or taking a small loss.  This will also make it ~$50-150 more than the Wii U (I expect the Wii U to sell for $300-$350) for a much more powerful system.

4GB normal ram and 2GB VRAM would be better. Even smartphones will feature 2GB RAM next year. I want the new OS to be as interactive as possible, with no trophy syncing or load times. Custom music at all times. True multitasking, like going to the web  to look up for walkthrough while playing a game.

 

  Here are some Crysis 2 comparison shots with amazing textures, PS4 definetly need 2GB VRAM

 

http://www.dsogaming.com/editorial/this-is-why-we-need-more-than-2gb-vram-in-our-graphics-cards/

 

Yesterday there was a thread about how far graphics could look better, well this is how much better they could look. I imagine that thread was made because WiiU is somewhat as powerful as current gen HD consoles. There will be a massive gap in graphics again.



Turkish on 11 June 2012
drkohler said:
green_sky said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

 

I will post what I have posted in a previous PS4 specs-thread (I've changed it slightly) but this time include my predicted price:

 

Hardware Specifications
Central Processing Unit (CPU) QC @ 3.4ghz (Not CELL)
Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) HD 7850 2gb vram
Memory  4GB min (inc 2gb vram)
Storage Capacity 320gb/500gb 

 

This can run BF3 on Ultra at 1080p + 60fps, considering it's a closed system that'll be well optimized for.
CPU = £75
GPU = £80
RAM = £25
Storage = £25/£50
Other parts = £80
Total manufacturing cost = £285/310
Retail prices:
320GB PS4 =  £299 ($349) 
500GB PS4 =  £349 ($399 note that these are not direct conversions of currency, 'Merica gets things cheaper)
 
A moderately powerful console, definitely a big jump over this gen, sold for a profitable £299/£349. Perfect.
Edit: CPU price has been adjusted

 

I like these specs and price :)

Lol.. Just lol. Where do you people get these completely dumb ideas from?

A (technology) company that wants to stay in business has to sell its products at following margins when entering the market:

If you gadget is a high-end product selling in small quantities: 400-500% of manufacturing costs.

If your gadget is a moderately selling product: 250-300% of manufacturing costs.

If you gadget is a general product: 150-200% of manufacturing costs.

Anybody thinking that Sony will start manufacturing a product with $100 CPU and $100 GPU is seriously deluded. Whatever Sony is planning to build (possibly by mid 2013), they will have to wait until manufacturing costs have come down, way below what is suggested here. TSMC is not ready yet with 28nm, GF is struggling even with 32nm yields, and other fabs are wild guesses.


The RSX at launch was 129 dollars and the Cell was 89 dollars. The GPU RSX was based of(albeit gimped down) was the top of the line card back in 05/06 costing more then 300 dollars. Its not hard to imagine an equivalent of HD7950/HD7850 in the PS4, the latest rumours point at that way. By january 2014 AMD will be busy with the HD9000s.



Around the Network
Scoobes on 11 June 2012
Turkish said:
drkohler said:
green_sky said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

 

I will post what I have posted in a previous PS4 specs-thread (I've changed it slightly) but this time include my predicted price:

 

Hardware Specifications
Central Processing Unit (CPU) QC @ 3.4ghz (Not CELL)
Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) HD 7850 2gb vram
Memory  4GB min (inc 2gb vram)
Storage Capacity 320gb/500gb 

 

This can run BF3 on Ultra at 1080p + 60fps, considering it's a closed system that'll be well optimized for.
CPU = £75
GPU = £80
RAM = £25
Storage = £25/£50
Other parts = £80
Total manufacturing cost = £285/310
Retail prices:
320GB PS4 =  £299 ($349) 
500GB PS4 =  £349 ($399 note that these are not direct conversions of currency, 'Merica gets things cheaper)
 
A moderately powerful console, definitely a big jump over this gen, sold for a profitable £299/£349. Perfect.
Edit: CPU price has been adjusted

 

I like these specs and price :)

Lol.. Just lol. Where do you people get these completely dumb ideas from?

A (technology) company that wants to stay in business has to sell its products at following margins when entering the market:

If you gadget is a high-end product selling in small quantities: 400-500% of manufacturing costs.

If your gadget is a moderately selling product: 250-300% of manufacturing costs.

If you gadget is a general product: 150-200% of manufacturing costs.

Anybody thinking that Sony will start manufacturing a product with $100 CPU and $100 GPU is seriously deluded. Whatever Sony is planning to build (possibly by mid 2013), they will have to wait until manufacturing costs have come down, way below what is suggested here. TSMC is not ready yet with 28nm, GF is struggling even with 32nm yields, and other fabs are wild guesses.


The RSX at launch was 129 dollars and the Cell was 89 dollars. The GPU RSX was based of(albeit gimped down) was the top of the line card back in 05/06 costing more then 300 dollars. Its not hard to imagine an equivalent of HD7950/HD7850 in the PS4, the latest rumours point at that way. By january 2014 AMD will be busy with the HD9000s.

What happened to HD8xxx?




Get your Portable ID!

drkohler on 11 June 2012
Scoobes said:
Turkish said:


The RSX at launch was 129 dollars and the Cell was 89 dollars. The GPU RSX was based of(albeit gimped down) was the top of the line card back in 05/06 costing more then 300 dollars. Its not hard to imagine an equivalent of HD7950/HD7850 in the PS4, the latest rumours point at that way. By january 2014 AMD will be busy with the HD9000s.

What happened to HD8xxx?

HD8xxx ("Sea Islands") is supposedly the name for the refresh generation of current 28nm chips (->"Venus","Oland","Mars"), to appear sometimes in early 2013 if ever TSMC/GF get their 28nm lines really working.

The RSX never was 129 dollars. Yes I remember that stupid iSupply chart with completely wrong numbers. One reason why Sony switched from NVidia was because they supposedly were royally screwed by NVidia on that deal. I doubt there will be a 100Watt GPU in a console ever, so a reduced 78xx is the best you can look for.



scottie on 11 June 2012

So if it costs $500 to make, and Sony is breaking even selling it for $499, then retailers are making a $1 loss on the console in Europe.

I pity whoever has to convince them...

 

Edit: Expecting a component to go down from $300 currently buying off the shelf to $100 buying bulk in ~9 months time when they start manufacturing and stockpiling units for launch? Doesn't $200 seem more appropriate?



Turkish on 11 June 2012
drkohler said:
Scoobes said:
Turkish said:


The RSX at launch was 129 dollars and the Cell was 89 dollars. The GPU RSX was based of(albeit gimped down) was the top of the line card back in 05/06 costing more then 300 dollars. Its not hard to imagine an equivalent of HD7950/HD7850 in the PS4, the latest rumours point at that way. By january 2014 AMD will be busy with the HD9000s.

What happened to HD8xxx?

HD8xxx ("Sea Islands") is supposedly the name for the refresh generation of current 28nm chips (->"Venus","Oland","Mars"), to appear sometimes in early 2013 if ever TSMC/GF get their 28nm lines really working.

The RSX never was 129 dollars. Yes I remember that stupid iSupply chart with completely wrong numbers. One reason why Sony switched from NVidia was because they supposedly were royally screwed by NVidia on that deal. I doubt there will be a 100Watt GPU in a console ever, so a reduced 78xx is the best you can look for.


iSuppli is a trustworthy source, they're specialised in electronics value. Can you provide a better source than them instead of calling their numbers wrong? I also think you're confusing Xbox 1 with PS3. Microsoft was the one that got screwed by Nvidia on their GPU deal. Many say it was also the reason MS killed off xbox so early.

PS3 at launch consumed around 200 watts, it had a PSU of 380 watts built in the console itself.



kanageddaamen on 12 June 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:
drkohler said:

Lol.. Just lol. Where do you people get these completely dumb ideas from?

A (technology) company that wants to stay in business has to sell its products at following margins when entering the market:

If you gadget is a high-end product selling in small quantities: 400-500% of manufacturing costs.

If your gadget is a moderately selling product: 250-300% of manufacturing costs.

If you gadget is a general product: 150-200% of manufacturing costs.

Anybody thinking that Sony will start manufacturing a product with $100 CPU and $100 GPU is seriously deluded. Whatever Sony is planning to build (possibly by mid 2013), they will have to wait until manufacturing costs have come down, way below what is suggested here. TSMC is not ready yet with 28nm, GF is struggling even with 32nm yields, and other fabs are wild guesses.


Wait, you do realise many if not most consoles sell at a loss in the first couple years right? Selling the actual unit is only one source of income, it's supposed to be made up for by software sales and other paid services like netflix and PS+

E.g PS3 cost $800 to manufacture, sold for $600 in 2006 and I believe 360 cost around $500 to manufacture back in 05, but sold for less. I may have to double check on 360 though.

Maybe I've misunderstood your post, could you explain?


The problem is Sony Corp can't afford to take a loss.  They just can't.  The company is in serious financial turmoil and can't afford a 150 - 300 Million dollar year one loss on hardware (assuming 6 million sold year one, $25 - $50 loss per console) on top of R&D and Marketing costs.  

Also, Keep in mind Sony does not GET the MSRP, they get a smaller percentage so retail stores can mark them up to the MSRP so THEY can make a profit.  Somewhere along that chain, shipping costs are paid too.

Financially, Sony NEEDS this:

Retail Price - (R&D Cost+Marketing Cost+Total Shipping Cost+Total Manufacturing Cost)/Consoles Sold - Retail Markup >=0



Monument Games, Inc.  Like us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/MonumentGames

Nintendo Netword ID: kanageddaamen

Monument Games, Inc President and Lead Designer
Featured Game: Shiftyx (Android) https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.Shiftyx

Free ad supported version:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.ShiftyxFree