Clocking GPU higher requires higher yield and results in more chips not passing the minimum threshold. Think of when overclocking your CPU or GPU, despite being same one as your friends you end up being able to clock higher or lower than them. On PS5 only chips able to clock 2230MHz or higher are able to be put in console, everything else is trash. Cerny already told us that the PS5 clock is at architecture maximum capability, no amount of extra cooling or power would allow it to go higher. With this in mind tells us that this architecture absolute max is the same as Navi. If you look at RX5700XT power draw and heat you see that it almost doubles from 1825MHz to 2250MHz and the performance does not scale.
Connecting all the dots we already have the figures available. You can also compare 5700 and 5700XT (clocked at same MHz) to get a sense of power difference for extra CUs.
Yeah I read your post, the formatting on it is not mobile friendly so my apologies.
So you think that shipping wonât be different despite PS5 being 30% bigger and having to put a stand in the box? Yeah they come on pallets, but guess what? Those pallets have defined size, whatever it is Sony will be able to put about 30% less consoles on those same pallets making shipping 30% more expensive.
Earlier I was thinking the S would be anywhere from $300-$400. With higher more likely. Thinking that even more now. Iâll say $400 for the S is the most likely outcome with $350 being the best possible price people should expect. Of all these, the S will be the more traditionally priced console. It wonât be cheap, just cheaper than the high end devices. The others will be more than what a typical console traditionally sells for imo. And the Digital Edition for Sony is them trying to bring it down to a reasonable price for consumers. Still expect a $50 difference between the Sony models.
Will all depend on what Sony prices theirs for. Because that will set the price for the S, and Microsoft will match one of the two models with the X.
Did you read my post? I gave you a perfect example as proof that clocks are dictated by quality of each chip. Itâs not an opinion, it is a widely known fact.
If MS clocked xsx higher the minimum MHz threshold would rise as would the price per chip as less would be able to reach the threshold.(lower clocks require lower quality of chip)
As I said look at overclocking reviews for various chips to get your confirmation.
Saying that every chip of same model can clock the same is equivalent to saying that every chip is made 100% perfect which is just wrong.
So if you have a 36cu gpu that has a max clock of 2000mhz and a 36cu gpu that has a max clock of 1800mhz what are the specific hardware difference which allow the first chip to be clocked higher?
$1 per console.
Delivery scales weirdly, like up to a certain size and weight threshold, its not going to be a lot more expensive to ship the PS5, especially with the volume and business relations sony has.
Regarding Kretens comments, theres no way to know if or to what extent the PS5s high clocks effects price, its likely that sony are âbinningâ by disaberling 4cus.
Yep. When the chip has finished fabrication, It goes into testing where they check the amount and location of failures. If the chip has up to 4 Compute units with imperfections, then it is " Binned" as viable. From here, They test the chips to make sure it can reach the required frequencies. Those that pass are then put through the process to disable the CUâs that are non functional or are selected to be disabled.
When you clock higher with processors, some may have imperfections that effect the clock rate that can be achieved.
So here is the thing with pricing for the Soc (system on chip) For arguements sake, letâs say that they can fit 1000 soc on a silicon wafer. So that is potentially 1000 socâs. It costs $100,000 to produce that silicon wafer. Means that with no failures, production cost is $ 100 per Soc. However, They are made and in the first binning, You only get 600 viable Soc. The other 400 are no good either due to manufacturing error or they cannot hit the clocks required for the product.
Now, it still cost $ 100,000 to make them all. So take the $100,000 and divide by 600. Now, to just cover the cost of making the Soc, each one costs $ 166.66.
When you place targets on producing products, you have to consider the failure rates as it can then add costs that you have to put somewhere.
To cover your earlier question about two 36 CU GPUâs, That comes down to cooling. As long as the chip remains inside the designed thermal envelope, It can run and process with no hassle. to clock a chip higher, It needs more power. More power requires better cooling to dissipate heat. A bigger and better heatsink is a additional cost that goes onto the BOM ( bill of materials) for a lot of what Sony has talked about with their approach, it is all standard options that are available to any customer. You have to decide where to spend the money to get the desired outcome.
I hope this helps a bit.
Edit: Sorry for the long winded explination. I work designing and fabricating products. These things always come up when talking to customers about how we have to plan out what they want. Just realized it could Sound pretentious to come in here and speak like an authority.
499 feels like the right price for both Microsoft and Sonyâs main console really. Itâs a round number (well, 500 is, but you know what I mean), itâs not going to resurrect the 599 USD memes, itâs a price that has been used recently on the X. The hardware level of both consoles is so high that itâs hard to see them go to 399, that would mean enormous losses on hardware frankly, which is something not even Microsoft can realistically want. Anything higher is a huge risk, anything lower is (maybe 449) is hardly realistic frankly.
Series S is the big question mark. If they give people a door to next-gen at 200-250 tops, they have a winner in their hands that could undermine PS5 big time for many casual gamers. If it ends up at 299 and PS5 is 399, might as well buy a PS5 for example. But if Series S is 249 and PS5 is 499, thatâs quite a difference worth considering.
Specific hardware differences could be number of things, for example imperfect âwiringâ between transistors, transistors themselves etc. just general manufacturing quality of individual chip.
See here in an example i7700K, all of the chips are able to hit 4800MHz, but only Top 1% of the chips are able to hit 5300MHz. Higher the frequency lower amount of chips are able to hit it. From Cerny speak and other indicators we know at 2230MHz itâs near the architecture limit which I believe is at 2250MHz-2300MHz. If you were to compare that to other samples of GPUs out there or for graphics sake to the table above, out of every 1000 APUs produced Sony would only be able to use 120 of them and rest are not good enough. Do know that GPUs are a bit more tolerant so it wouldnât be as extreme as only 12% usable. However at those clocks, numbers can not possibly look good for usable chips, just the way that laws of physics work. So when I say that i believe PS5 apu could be more expensive it is going off of thinking that MS might be getting like 80% good chips and Sony 50%(optimistic) due to being near the limit where they have to be near flawless.
Yeah idk what prices they pay per pallet, but I donât imagine itâs cheap to ship via boat+truck. I figure theyâll be able to put 30% less on pallet so for every 2 pallets for MS, Sony has to pay for a 3rd one.
This is about where I am at as well after seeing what MS announced. I think PS5 will match Series X as going higher would be bad, and so that that means that the DE has to be priced lower and going for 100$ lower might be too much unless they really want to take the loss. I can still still 450 although I think theyâll try to go down to 429. That would put MS in a good spot though I think as at the high end I still think people will value the disc drive and a 70$ difference isnât too significant for people spending that amount of money.
Series S is the Trojan horse and I think MS priced it really well!
@LifeForms this is not wholly correct. When you design a chip, given the process technology and expected yield, you will design with certain STA target. So when you want your chips to run, say at 1.8GHz, you would have closed your STA @ 2.1 or 2.2GHz. This allows for small margin to increase your clocks later if needed. Some of your chips may be operational at 2.0, but most will not. For consoles where you want 10s of millions of âidenticalâ chips, this is a problem. Its OK for PC where they can bin and sell the higher perf parts for a premium. So, the chip cost would absolutely go up, if the number of usable parts are less. Microsoft or Sony cannot sell the chips that did not hit performance.
This seems realistic. The materials alone to make the machine look expensive. Textured collars that are probably interchangeable? Not to mention their high end SSD is probably one of the most expensive parts of the system i think?
Thereâs probably a big reason why its 812gb instead of 1tb and that reason was to meet a price point.
