32MB eSRAM make the APU for Xbone be ~40% bigger... so complex to produce, less units per wafer and yields issues.... that's make the Xbone's APU way expensive compared to PS4's APU.

There is no magic that makes that APU cheaper.

In the other note the PS4 have the GDDR5 more expensive but it is less than the difference between the APUs.

"way expensive" you mean 10% more?

The article says the GDDR5 costs $28 more.

Are we reading the same article?

Yeah this is what makes me laugh. The specialist engineers at Microsoft can all just be fired. Higher the GAF guys.

Both the GAF guys and 3rd party devs are being made to look pretty silly after Ryse released. Not even the graphics developers and coders at Guirella Games could beat Ryse on supposedly harder to develop for and weaker hardware.

In other words PS4 will always be cheaper, at least until MS make Kinect optional.

Fair point, I'm playing on a 105 inch screen though :/ At that size, generally speaking, native resolution is going to be preferred vs upscaling/anti ailising. Like I said, I'm playing on an extreme side of the spectrum and I'm an outlier comparitive to many. 

They use the same wafer size with the same final cost to produce... 40% bigger chip will be always expensive no matter what... even if the wafer give 100% funcional chips you will have more units from a smaller chip than a bigger one.

I need the real die size from both APU + the yields % to make the estimate for the cost of these APUs but the PS4's APU will be cheaper.

So here we have the reason why Microsoft prefer to sell Xbox one 100$ more than ps4, and its because they have more income with the Kinect sku at 500$ than without it for 400$ like ps4.

So Microsoft had other options....

a) Xbox One with Kinect for 400$ to compete with PS4 on prize and absorb a lot of the costs.
b) Xbox One without Kinect for 400$ and absorb much less costs, but then being in a war trying to justify a practically same console that is less powerful.
c) Xbox One without Kinect for 350-300$. More interesting prize for the consumer but just as much cost or even more than option a.

In the end, i think they choose their best option. You obtain more benefit per console than PS4 and you introduce Kinect 2.0 in a lot of consumers. The problem?? The risk to sell a lot less than ps4 for being more expensive. It's clear that Microsoft is confident that this will not be a problem if they have exclusive bust-sellers and all this extra media features become a success, but i wonder what they will do if PS4 starts selling 2:1 or 3:1 worldwide....

Oh that must be the cause of Xbox 360's great build with huge failure rate?

Well to be fair the ps4 is more powerful and easier to develop for.  Crytek did a fantastic job though (on graphics).

Please, my friend. Let´s try it again.

"way expensive" you say is 10% more. Are you sugesting it´s more?

And GDDR5 vs DDR3 is close to 50% more, compensating the price of the APU.