Microsoft didn't go crazy with clock speed.Right. So magically MS just happened to completely avoid this issue and everything is hunkydory? Come on man.
Microsoft didn't go crazy with clock speed.Right. So magically MS just happened to completely avoid this issue and everything is hunkydory? Come on man.
It's so crazy I'm inclined not to believe it's true. It's a lot to unpack.
I think more precision questions may be in order - is it 50% of what they expected? 50% of the total wafer sheet? Those may be very different numbers. The reason chips have CU's turned off is to try and increase the yields but honestly that number generally represents the expected loss. So if you have 2 disabled CU's on a, say 38CU (getting you 36 good CU's) - you're expecting 5%-6% failure rates (this is an oversimplification but you get the point). Launch yield issues may represent 10%, maybe 20% on the high end.
I would LOVE to know why some people are so adamant the PS5 will be more expensive than the XSX.Even more then ever I'm Team $599/$499. I really think the DE is the way the can match the Series X for marketing but still sell more disc based PS5s despite for $100 more w/ the drive and plastic cost being a fraction of that.
Maybe the SSDI would LOVE to know why some people are so adamant the PS5 will be more expensive than the XSX.
We wouldn't in my hypothetical case. We'd get a $499 console with a $549/599 premium w/ a UHD Blu-ray. If they market the DE at $499 they hit their sweet spot. I honestly don't understand the $399 DE claims, though I'd love to be wrong as I'm a Day One
Is there a relationship between chip yield rates and console failure rate?With the yields issue, if that does mean potentially more defects (if true), then I think I may just wait for beginning of 2021 to snag a console for them to iron out any kinks.
We didn't read about yield issues recently on Xbox though and that's not the topic of the thread.They didn't, but it's still a fairly high clock speed and it's a very big chip which comes with it's own issues in terms of yields.
No. The wafer will have a fixed price and whether you get 100 or 130 dies you still pay the same. So the lower your yields the more expensive each die is.Yes, that's what I would speculate as well. I'm just curious what the root cause is (clocks, or RDNA2, or new process, etc...maybe a combination of all three).
MS did reveal that this new process was a LOT more expensive, shouldn't that mostly be down to yields?
sony will never make it public, but wanna know what percent of chips work, but cant achive clocks, sony is defenitly clocking very agressivly. tsmc 7nm yelds are prity high as I understand it.They didn't, but it's still a fairly high clock speed and it's a very big chip which comes with it's own issues in terms of yields.
No the chips are differentWouldn't it be safe to assume XSX/XSS are on the same node and foundry? If so, would they not also be subject to these issues?
Most likely due to aggressive cpu clocks. Also those prices were predictions just that is the lowest possible price. But does not equate to meaning those are the priceswhoa 449 and 399 is massive, would love those prices! but i dont trust em, lol, not getting my hopes up. we'll see wednesday.
is the shortages because of the way the smart switch stuff is set up?
This is marketing/PR you guys realise this yeah?
Sales 101 create scarcity, real or imagined.
Right. So magically MS just happened to completely avoid this issue and everything is hunkydory? Come on man.
I'm hoping Sony comes through with the direct preorders.That's why you guys really need to follow wario64 and pre order asap when pre orders open
You'll be fighting resellers too
Thats what CU redundancies are for. Big Navi is rumored to have 80 CUs so 52 ain't that bad at all. But high clock GPU SKUs are sold at premium due to low yields/binning.They didn't, but it's still a fairly high clock speed and it's a very big chip which comes with it's own issues in terms of yields.
Even the test 5nm process had yields of 80%.sony will never make it public, but wanna know what percent of chips work, but cant achive clocks, sony is defenitly clocking very agressivly. tsmc 7nm yelds are prity high as I understand it.
Yeah that sounds very high...I thought the original plan was 10 million by March 31? 11 million still sounds like a crazy amount.
It's so crazy I'm inclined not to believe it's true. It's a lot to unpack.
I think more precision questions may be in order - is it 50% of what they expected? 50% of the total wafer sheet? Those may be very different numbers. The reason chips have CU's turned off is to try and increase the yields but honestly that number generally represents the expected loss. So if you have 2 disabled CU's on a, say 38CU (getting you 36 good CU's) - you're expecting 5%-6% failure rates (this is an oversimplification but you get the point). Launch yield issues may represent 10%, maybe 20% on the high end.
50% failures basically doubles the cost of the chip per box - which is the single most expensive part of the BOM.
My tendency when I hear a number like this is to not believe it. However, they are clocking that CU pretty high and depending on what you believe about how/when in the process that may have happened, it could have proven to be a problem in manufacturing.
I guess we'll find out more tomorrow!
the ps2 was also a dirt cheap dvd player though. about half of ps2s sold for that reason.Lots and doom and gloom as expected, but it's worth keeping history in mind here. The PS2 had absolutely atrocious yields on the GPU and had to cut launch shipments for North American by half, from 1 million to 500,000. It still sold at $299 and went on to be the highest selling console of all time.
The PS3 likely had terrible yields for Cell as well. IBM once said that yields of 10-20% were considered good for a chip like Cell. But since 1 SPE was disabled to improve yields, the number for PS3 is probably something like 20-40%.
I've also read that the 360 had yields of only around 50% for the GPU.
The PS4 has very high yields, but that's not surprising given the conservative nature of the hardware.
PS5 yields being at around 50% but only dropping shipments from ~15 million to 11 million units (which is still an insane number for a launch window) don't represent a dire situation.
In other words, calm down.
The point is that we might no ear about xbox yield issues because even if exists they might not affect its desired production.
yup there is a decent bit of evdence pointing to that efect. if they wanted a 10tfps system from the jump, they would have a higher cu count.Are you thinking that they originally planned to clock the GPU slower, and then increased the speeds in response to the Xbox Series X specs?
This is marketing/PR you guys realise this yeah?
Sales 101 create scarcity, real or imagined.
still think its less a chips not working issue, and more they arent meeting crazy high clocks that sony is using.The point is that we might no ear about xbox yield issues because even if exists they might not affect its desired production.
I wouldn't think reducing the GPU clocks would be an option at this point. What would that do to all the games that are being developed around the 2.23GHz spec?Yeah, if clocks are to blame for 50% yields....why wouldn't Sony just lower the clocks and bring them down into the realm of sanity?
That's why it's not really believable to me, unless these are somehow short term issues that should be resolved with time.
It's terribly cost inefficient and goes completely against Sony's hardware ethos. They've already lost the "Compute" power war, so getting down to 9TF isn't the end of the world in all honesty.
Is there something happening tomorrow that sheds more light on this?
ms would instantly respond in kind lowering xsx to 449.Damn, my prediction could be right after all. That price would be killer.
No game has been released yet so they could still change it. It would all come in hot but perhaps that's the case anyway.I wouldn't think reducing the GPU clocks would be an option at this point. What would that do to all the games that are being developed around the 2.23GHz spec?
It seems strange to see this price prediction in the same article that reports on the yield problems. What would be the point of selling the PS5 for $450 if you don't have the supply to meet demand at $500?Damn, my prediction could be right after all. That price would be killer.
pretty much all the FUD we heard about the ps5 has come to be true. i remember hearing about hot ps5 earlier this year as well. i have stayed strong and dismissed everything as fud but the hits keep on coming.To me it doesn't give credance because again, sarcrificing a huge amount of wasted cost just to increase from 9TF to 10.28TF is unimaginably stupid.
They definitely would not. Either AMD or Sony are paying for those wafers. I'm not sure who eats the cost here, as we have no access to that infoWhy would TSMC absorb the costs associated with the "poor" design of a chip?
Assuming an ASP of $449 (which splits the difference between all the pricing rumors) that's $1.8B in revenue just on console HW, and another $600M in games/accessories (assuming $150/per console). So it's not chump change, either.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment that being able to produce 11m units is 'struggling', but I agree with your post.
I dunno - when you see the word 'struggling', what images does it bring to mind?
Why am I not surprised you're agreeing with the most negative takes yet again.pretty much all the FUD we heard about the ps5 has come to be true. i remember hearing about hot ps5 earlier this year as well. i have stayed strong and dismissed everything as fud but the hits keep on coming.
at this point, im inclined to believe everything. lets not forget that this was sony's turn to mess things up after a successful gen. it happens to everyone. they were aiming for a $399 box, went for a cheaper and smaller SOC, had to call an audible and that increase in clocks ended up coming back to haunt them. i seriously cannot even fathom a 50% failure rate. this is going to be passed on to the consumers because there is no way sony is taking an extra $100 loss on top of the $100 loss they are most likely going to be taking.
this bizarre focus on ssd over tflops never sit right with me either. seriously, who is gonna use that ssd except for first party devs? was that really worth all this?
i guess we will find out tomorrow if the cost is too high, but now im in the $499-599 camp. best case scenario, we get sub $500 consoles but you cant just hide the losses from a 50% yield rate. that basically means their cheaper $100 chip is actually $200. effectively increasing the BOM by a $100. if sony eats that today, expect higher prices on first party games, and a higher ps+ sub.
pretty much all the FUD we heard about the ps5 has come to be true. i remember hearing about hot ps5 earlier this year as well. i have stayed strong and dismissed everything as fud but the hits keep on coming.
at this point, im inclined to believe everything. lets not forget that this was sony's turn to mess things up after a successful gen. it happens to everyone. they were aiming for a $399 box, went for a cheaper and smaller SOC, had to call an audible and that increase in clocks ended up coming back to haunt them. i seriously cannot even fathom a 50% failure rate. this is going to be passed on to the consumers because there is no way sony is taking an extra $100 loss on top of the $100 loss they are most likely going to be taking.
this bizarre focus on ssd over tflops never sit right with me either. seriously, who is gonna use that ssd except for first party devs? was that really worth all this?
i guess we will find out tomorrow if the cost is too high, but now im in the $499-599 camp. best case scenario, we get sub $500 consoles but you cant just hide the losses from a 50% yield rate. that basically means their cheaper $100 chip is actually $200. effectively increasing the BOM by a $100. if sony eats that today, expect higher prices on first party games, and a higher ps+ sub.
pretty much all the FUD we heard about the ps5 has come to be true. i remember hearing about hot ps5 earlier this year as well. i have stayed strong and dismissed everything as fud but the hits keep on coming.
at this point, im inclined to believe everything. lets not forget that this was sony's turn to mess things up after a successful gen. it happens to everyone. they were aiming for a $399 box, went for a cheaper and smaller SOC, had to call an audible and that increase in clocks ended up coming back to haunt them. i seriously cannot even fathom a 50% failure rate. this is going to be passed on to the consumers because there is no way sony is taking an extra $100 loss on top of the $100 loss they are most likely going to be taking.
this bizarre focus on ssd over tflops never sit right with me either. seriously, who is gonna use that ssd except for first party devs? was that really worth all this?
i guess we will find out tomorrow if the cost is too high, but now im in the $499-599 camp. best case scenario, we get sub $500 consoles but you cant just hide the losses from a 50% yield rate. that basically means their cheaper $100 chip is actually $200. effectively increasing the BOM by a $100. if sony eats that today, expect higher prices on first party games, and a higher ps+ sub.