AMD processor cost
mfrom what I've read so far, the x1sx has 30% more CU that will probably increase the cost of the X1sx whilst the argument for the ps5 is the higher clock rates will increase yield deficiency and Sony will have to eat up the cost. However, everything we've heard so far poibts to yields being great for the ps5. The difference in cost surely is massively in favour for the ps5 as having 30% more CUs won't come at a $5-10 difference will it?! Also, correct me if I'm wrong but more CUs also could mean higher yield deficiencies and we've heard nothing from the xbox camp to say otherwise.
Result: cheaper for ps5
The chip manufacturing cost isn't that simple to quantify.
Whilst you are most certainly on the money that the larger the chip, the more it costs to manufacture... But sometimes when you take a smaller chip and drive up the clockrates and voltages like Sony has done, you end up with chip "leakage" which is where electrons leak from one part of the chip to another, which does decrease chip yields and thus increase costs.
My point is, it's really difficult to assert whether the Playstation 5 chip is cheaper to manufacture when Sony has dialed in the clocks... But as TSMC matures it's manufacturing process and improves the electrical characteristics of that particular fabrication node, then Sony will certainly have a cost advantage... But right now, it's difficult to tell.
RAM: same ram, but faster on the x1sx.
Result: same for both or near enough the same
Sony is pushing it's 16GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.
Microsoft is pushing it's 16GB GDDR6 on a 192-320bit memory bus, which is definitely going to require more PCB layers and traces.
Microsoft's approach will definitely cost more.
Cooling solution: x1x won't go with a cheap solution. Possibly use the same colling solution as the X1X. Ps5 won't use mercury cooling, but cheaper alternative with a casing they have designed.
Result: cheaper on x1sx, but will it really be $40-50 more expensive?!
We have already seen the cooling solution the Xbox Series X is using.
They are both likely using vapor chamber cooling, the Xbox Series X's entire "design" is actually based around the cooler to keep everything consolidated and efficient.
I doubt there is much in the way of pricing differences between the two however.
SSD: my understanding is they both use the same SSD, but how it connects is different. Ps5 has more lanes and esram I think. The tech used isn't new and expensive, its been out together by existing tech. The Esram is probably the cost differentiator, but then the xb1sx is paying for an additional 175GB of SSD.
Result: in my head at least anyway, the x1sx as the cost of the additional 175gb will out weigh the cost of the esram and other bits.
They both use NAND. That is the only aspect they are the "same" in.
Neither uses eSRAM.
The Playstation 5's SSD is definitely more costly, it's using more memory chips and it's implemented them on a wider memory bus with a more intricate memory controller which will require more PCB traces, Sony did attempt to scale back the cost by reducing the amount of NAND capacity.
SSD is definitely more expensive for the Playstation 5.
Controller: people assume there is a lot of new tech in the dual sense, but in reality it's just a DS4 with a cheap ass mic that they usually throw in for free in the earphones and they have replaces the rumble with haptic feedback. Everything else is from the DS4, and the haptic feedback alone is less new tech than going from DS3 to DS4, which had the light bar, touch controller, new rumble, speaker and headphone jack.
Results: same as they are both using mostly same tech
Outside of these differences I think there are 2 more factors to take into consideration:
Manufacturing: we know Sony not so long ago finished building their own state of the art manufacting factory. If sony is building a lot of these themselves they will save massively on manufacturing. Some how I find it hard to believe they would build this facility for the ps4 knowing the ps5 is coming out.
Result: cheaper for sony
Sony does need to recoup the hundreds of millions spent on that plant, the initial investment will take awhile to break even.
Foxconn has proven to be very cost effective for manufacturers.
Result: cheaper for sony
Overall: everything points to a cheaper cost to Sony.
Again people, this is not about console waring, this is about understanding where the costs might be for either machine and why.
I think they are both closer than you might think.