Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why do people think the Ps5 costs more to manufacture?!

If I had to guess both will cost around the same to manufacture.



Around the Network

Not sure how accurate Bloomberg is but they have another rumour that Sony is having issues and up to 50% of the yeilds are defective.

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2020/09/rumour_sony_forced_to_cut_ps5_production_by_4_million_units_due_to_chip_troubles

Wonder how accurate this is as the same analyst is also predicting $399 for DE and $449 for BR.

Edit to add pricing from article. 



Whoever said life to be like a box of chocolates clearly didn't know what he was talking about. 

Life is more like a game of bumper cars. At every turn there is a possibility you will get screwed.

Fei-Hung said:

Not sure how accurate Bloomberg is but they have another rumour that Sony is having issues and up to 50% of the yeilds are defective.

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2020/09/rumour_sony_forced_to_cut_ps5_production_by_4_million_units_due_to_chip_troubles

Wonder how accurate this is as the same analyst is also predicting $399 for DE and $449 for BR.

Edit to add pricing from article. 

They started with 5-6 millions, then rumours about increasing to 10 millions, now 15 millions which never heard of but then down to 11 million units (by the rumours)

Even is the rumours are correct, 11 million units is far more than the 8 millions or so that the PS4 shipped for FY 2013.

That would be INSANE!!



50% defective yields is stupidly high. Grain of salt with that one.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Conina said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

The SSD is the main culprit. The size is actually the same between the two (Sony calculates in Gibibytes while Microsoft used Gigabytes), but Microsoft could use cheaper chips and SSD controllers than Sony for their respective targets. Potentially by a lot considering parts get ordered way in advance. Plus Sony is using more smaller chips, which will definitely cost more than what Microsoft is using.

They are not the same.

Xbox Series X = 1 Terabyte = 1000 Gigabyte = 931 Gibibyte

PS5 = 0.825 Terabyte = 825 Gigabyte = 768 Gibibyte

Xbox Series S = 0.5 Terabyte = 500 Gigabyte = 466 Gibibyte

I thought the difference came just down to using Gibibytes and formatting, my bad then.

One thing I haven't mentioned and that nobody knows is if there's some overprovisioning, and then to what extend, to keep the performance high even when the storage is pretty full on both Xnox and PS5. Guess that's something we'll only find out from a teardown after release...



Around the Network
Fei-Hung said:

Not sure how accurate Bloomberg is but they have another rumour that Sony is having issues and up to 50% of the yeilds are defective.

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2020/09/rumour_sony_forced_to_cut_ps5_production_by_4_million_units_due_to_chip_troubles

Wonder how accurate this is as the same analyst is also predicting $399 for DE and $449 for BR.

Edit to add pricing from article. 

The analyst said it may go that low; they aren't predicting that as the final price. 



drkohler said:
EricHiggin said:

I'd guess the SSD.

Your guess is largely wrong. There is one factor, the cost of the PS5 ssd. This basically is 12 generic, lower speed 512GBit nvrams. If you check the semiconductor spot market (where neither Sony nor MS buys its stuff because too expensive), that's probably around $24 (on good day) - $30. That is roughly the manufacturing cost. The other factor that drives costs is the develoment of  the entire I/O-system. The whole data chain in the SoC plus the front-end ssd controller (a rather "cheap" custom one as there is no dram memory involved, that sits in the PS5 SoC as sram).

How much does the second factor add to the cost of the ssd? Roll the dices, only Sony knows. If it worked the first try, add $100M, if it was a total mess, add $500M. So for 50M consoles, add $2-$10 to the ssd cost. Then add the usual bureaucracy costs and you end up around $40 for the ssd. From a bill of material costs viewpoint, this is significantly more expensive than a low-end $23 harddisk. From a shoppers viewpoint who pays $189.99 at the store for a similar pc ssd, it's dirt cheap.

My guess that those who aren't in the know, may assume after buying their $99.99 PC SSD, that if the PS5 SSD is remarkably faster than anything on the market, that it may perhaps cost $199.99 or more, making it more more expensive than the XBSX, has no merit?

I'd assume you misunderstand where I'm coming from, or maybe I really am missing something. 



EricHiggin said:
drkohler said:

Your guess is largely wrong. There is one factor, the cost of the PS5 ssd. This basically is 12 generic, lower speed 512GBit nvrams. If you check the semiconductor spot market (where neither Sony nor MS buys its stuff because too expensive), that's probably around $24 (on good day) - $30. That is roughly the manufacturing cost. The other factor that drives costs is the develoment of  the entire I/O-system. The whole data chain in the SoC plus the front-end ssd controller (a rather "cheap" custom one as there is no dram memory involved, that sits in the PS5 SoC as sram).

How much does the second factor add to the cost of the ssd? Roll the dices, only Sony knows. If it worked the first try, add $100M, if it was a total mess, add $500M. So for 50M consoles, add $2-$10 to the ssd cost. Then add the usual bureaucracy costs and you end up around $40 for the ssd. From a bill of material costs viewpoint, this is significantly more expensive than a low-end $23 harddisk. From a shoppers viewpoint who pays $189.99 at the store for a similar pc ssd, it's dirt cheap.

My guess that those who aren't in the know, may assume after buying their $99.99 PC SSD, that if the PS5 SSD is remarkably faster than anything on the market, that it may perhaps cost $199.99 or more, making it more more expensive than the XBSX, has no merit?

I'd assume you misunderstand where I'm coming from, or maybe I really am missing something. 

The $199 was the suggested rrp for xbox x series SSD. I think someone mentioned earlier the cost of SSD for these Ssds is no where near as high for Sony and MS and the cost difference for both might be negligible as one has more memory whilst the other has a custom IO. 

I'm hoping they release a teardown video. It's nice to see the innards of these things. 



Whoever said life to be like a box of chocolates clearly didn't know what he was talking about. 

Life is more like a game of bumper cars. At every turn there is a possibility you will get screwed.

sales2099 said:
Dallinor said:

Have you put much thought into that or is it just a throwaway comment based on preference?

The way I look at it the result of the design decisions made will be reflected in the price these systems launch for (including room for future cuts) and the results they manage to achieve with software. It's a careful balancing act. I'm certainly not willing to definitively choose one strategy/design over the other yet.

Based on the bold you responded to, yes I firmly believe that. They turned it around since Xbox One S and Xbox One X. They came a long way since RROD and the VCR Xbox One.

The mid gen updates are simply on another level then PS4 Pro, which couldn’t do 4k movies, and made a ton of compromises with resolution and FPS where as Xbox X is a quiet beast compared to the jet engine fan.

With Series X I firmly believe it’s pure function over form and the opposite for Sony. 

I disagree...Not that MS hardware team hasn't done some good stuff, but disagree with this notion they are on some whole other level.

MS basically did in 2017 with the XB1X and the XB1S prior to that what sony had already accomplished with their own hardware in 2013. Everything you could look at and say was an improvement over the OG XB1 to the XB1s/XB1X (especially the 1X) was just MS doing thing design-wise to mimic what sony had done since PS4slaucnh.

Where they differ at that point (especially when looking at the Pro vs the 1X) has more to do with design choices and priorities than with engineering brilliance. 1X went for a bigger APU, sony didn't, 1X went with a vapor chamber cooler (which if you follow tech in the industry you would know is as standard an option as picking a color for your PCB) sony went for a standard cooler. 1X was targeting a $499 price point PS4pro was targeting a $399 one. Sony was never targeting "native 4K" with the Pro, which is why they built in hardware specifically to boost their CBR implementation. Sony were never trying to prioritize a "quiet" console" or they could have just gone the XB1og route and used a bigger fan and bigger case or smaller case and vapor chamber cooling. The things you are attributing to "great engineering" really isn't. 

And now if looking at the PS5 and XSX, its the same thing again. It's easy to look at something that has more power as "being on another level" but those just come down to some very simple design choices. Size of APU, size of cooler. Surely, looking at both upcoming next-gen consoles, sony's engineering team has made and designed by far more disruptive hardware features. Their SSD, their complete rethink of clock and power profile in consoles, their fixed power approach to mastering thermals, their IO throughput stuff. Believe me when I say that as far as chip engineering goes, these are far more interesting and complex than simply having a bigger GPU/APU.

Last edited by Intrinsic - 5 days ago

Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

How can you say X1 had a efficient cooling if they needed a case that was bigger than PS4, while weaker and having the brick outside of it? Being quieter isn`t the same as being more efficient. As I`m pretty sure efficency is measured in other means, either power consumption versus output (like a GPU) or power versus cost, etc.

I am strictly speaking from a cooler perspective here, the Playstation 4 definitely had superior hardware and a more attractive form factor, not beating around the bush or pretending otherwise.

But the cooler in the Xbox One was reliable, it was silent... Because Microsoft made a *massive* case (Which half of it was pretty much venting) that could hold allot of air and the cooler could push around allot of air to keep everything cool.

In terms of efficiency I am talking about noise pollution and thermals here, the launch Xbox One was always running cooler and quieter... And yes a large portion of that is due to the large ugly box and weaker hardware.... But it's also due to the much much much larger, higher quality cooler... Heat dissipation is definitely a function of the amount of surface area (I.E. Size of the heatsink) and air flow. (I.E. Fan)

And the Xbox One had a massive chunk of metal keeping everything cool, where Sony opted for more of a blower-design with a smaller, higher RPM fan.

Playstation 4:



Xbox One:



There are advantages to both approaches, Sony's approach means they can have a smaller form factor and they can "channel" air flow to where they want, but it does mean for a more intricate construction of the device with higher noise and potentially thermals.

Xbox's approach is cheaper, quieter and will cool everything inside the housing... Plus because the fan is larger, it will operate at a lower RPM, which should increase the longevity of the fan.


Since it will be more on semanthics... Since yes I can agree that the cooling solution of X1X (and possibly X1) were stronger and quieter (but don't know about the power drain or cost) we can certainly say it is more effective or stronger, efficiency is something we can't directly calculate. Anyway as you said both done the job and certainly since a very good portion of gamers consider the noise a relevant point (I don't, while playing it never bothered me, although my fat PS4 is quite noisy even on home when my son is using - possibly needing some cleaning and perhaps thermal paste replacement) I can concede that the cooling solution on Xbox was superior this gen (and well it is possible to be superior on next gen since we already know XSX is improved over the X1X and PS5 even though said is improved we don't know how much, and well it would take a major improvement to get close to XSX).



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