IHS: $399 Playstation 4 costs Sony $381 to build

A few days ago, the iFixit website posted up a teardown of Sony's PlayStation 4 and said it was a pretty easy device to repair. Now the research firm IHS has conducted its own teardown of the game console, but their goal was to find out how much money it takes to build one of these products.

AllThingsD reported they got to check out IHS's report ahead of its public release, which claims that the PS4, which Sony is selling for $399 in the U.S., costs $381 to build. Close to half of those costs are for AMD's processor, which IHS claims has a price of $100, and the PS4's 16 individual memory chips at $88. Other PS4 parts include the 500GB Seagate hard drive at $37, the console's optical drive at $28 and a controller at $18.

The PS4's cost at launch compared to its component prices is far better than what Sony came up with for the PS3 launch in 2006. Back then, IHS estimated it cost the company a whopping $805 to make the 60GB version of the console that was sold at $599. Over time, the price to manufacture the PS3 went down and, as a result, Sony also reduced the price of the console. That will eventually happen to the PS4 as well.

While Sony's PS4 costs are razor thin compared to its retail price, it looks like the company is aiming to make most of its profits from the console from selling games. GameStop claims that customers will buy about four games at the same time they buy a next-gen console, which is a very high attach rate.

Source: AllThingsD | Image via iFixit

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia shareholders approve sale of devices business to Microsoft

Next Story

Apple releases iOS 7.1 Beta 1 to developers

94 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Don't all company's that make computers, expect to make money off selling applications? That's where the money is. The money is in the software, not the hardware.

When you sell someone hardware directly or indirectly, your sales are basically done. Unless you make something to go with that hardware, you wont make any more money off the sale unless what someone else sells has some licensing attached from you.

Didn't the original Xbox also cost like $700 and MS sold it at a lost for years before finally turning a profit? Microsoft makes good games, just not enough of them. They need to make more for their platform.

So...what you are saying is there is a chance for me to save $18 so long as I do my own assembly?

Where do I buy the parts from again?

/s

Obviously once labor is added + R&D that's a pretty significant loss but nothing in new in the console wars. Just makes 3rd party console market entry so much harder for the little guys.

Prices listed above assumes you want to build the system yourself, which is not accurate. They purchase hardware by the masses and they come to 10% of the price listed. On Black Friday I can buy all those items for $200 and less.

Not bashing PS4, I think the price is perfect and I don't mind a $1000+ console if is future proof. Few game purchases are alot more than the console price and people doesn't seem to mind the $60 price tag.

Bold plan. Most analysis tends to be on real data and yes it might not be super-profitable but the returns long-term might be greater.

So that's $18 profit for each system, and they sold 1 mil in 24hrs. I'd say theyre doing a pretty good job. On top of that, if the controller is only $18 and it sells for like $50, then that's a hefty profit on each extra controller that's sold too.

Bear in mind a lot of that profit will be going to retailers not Sony. They'll buy each system at $325 or so and the rest will be their profit.

Jdawg683 said,
So that's $18 profit for each system, and they sold 1 mil in 24hrs. I'd say theyre doing a pretty good job. On top of that, if the controller is only $18 and it sells for like $50, then that's a hefty profit on each extra controller that's sold too.

More like revenue, we can't forget the initial costs and other costs (shipping etc) that go with the release. We'll have to see what Sony says when it's time to talk financials for the quarter. Last time though they posted that the PlayStation part of the company had a loss, can't remember exactly how much off the top of my head though.

Jaybonaut said,
They're selling the controller for $60. Crazy.

Similar as for the PS3 controllers...
And so what, they're durable and will last you a life time.

Jaybonaut said,
As a fighting game fan? Guess.

I don't think you know who you're talking to then haha. The only controllers I've broken were the N64's because that joystick was made rather crappy. Gets loose easily.

dead.cell said,

I don't think you know who you're talking to then haha. The only controllers I've broken were the N64's because that joystick was made rather crappy. Gets loose easily.

Yeah I remember - the analog stick did not last in those things.

this speaks volumes to how low end these consoles are compared to pc gaming. and to how the console market has changed. in the past, consoles rivaled pcs at launch, today, they are nothing bug castrated boxes with little to no upgradeability other than the mass storage.

OK if you can point out a PC which has:

- An APU consisting of 8-core CPU and equivalent spec GPU (not even available to consumers)
- 8GB GDDR5 (a $1000 GTX Titan only has 6GB, right?)
- Draws around 140W at full load

then please point it out.

There is something like the Alienware X51 which comes with a 4-core processor and GTX 660 or 760 but even then that thing draws almost 330w at full load and costs upwards of $1000

Stop trying to be all high and mighty when the two just aren't comparable. For the price & specs the PS4 is a bargain.

Nilus said,
OK if you can point out a PC which has:

- An APU consisting of 8-core CPU and equivalent spec GPU (not even available to consumers)
- 8GB GDDR5 (a $1000 GTX Titan only has 6GB, right?)
- Draws around 140W at full load

then please point it out.

There is something like the Alienware X51 which comes with a 4-core processor and GTX 660 or 760 but even then that thing draws almost 330w at full load and costs upwards of $1000

Stop trying to be all high and mighty when the two just aren't comparable. For the price & specs the PS4 is a bargain.


Amen!

Nilus said,
OK if you can point out a PC which has:

- An APU consisting of 8-core CPU and equivalent spec GPU (not even available to consumers)
- 8GB GDDR5 (a $1000 GTX Titan only has 6GB, right?)
- Draws around 140W at full load

then please point it out.

There is something like the Alienware X51 which comes with a 4-core processor and GTX 660 or 760 but even then that thing draws almost 330w at full load and costs upwards of $1000

Stop trying to be all high and mighty when the two just aren't comparable. For the price & specs the PS4 is a bargain.

This x100. It's physically impossible to build a PC with the same chassis size with the same amount of power for a comparable price.

I'm a pure PC gamer, but anybody with half a brain recognizes that consoles pack a great value for the price. Maybe we'll see something interesting when Steam Box comes out, but until then, if you want something cheap and powerful that fits into an entertainment center, a console is by far the best option.

Why even calling it APU and not SoC. And why bother with shared memory? And what does outdated hardware have to do with a bargain?

Nilus said,
equivalent spec GPU (not even available to consumers)

Just picked this gem out of your post.
You know the GPU in a PS4 is somewhere around the HD7850/HD7870 level? Those cards are 18 months old.

Nilus said,
- 8GB GDDR5 (a $1000 GTX Titan only has 6GB, right?)

TRIPLE WUT? The memory on a PS4 is shared between the GPU and system so it's a grand total of 8GB. If you'd want to be more accurate you'd maybe point out that a titan has 6GB of dedicated onboard memory for itself. Then the system probably has another 8GB or 16GB in most cases.

Add in other comedies like the 500GB sata-2 laptop hard disk and you see why this is a $400 piece of kit. It's priced that way because you get about $400 of performance.

Please, don't try equating it to proper hardware in PCs.

Edited by Sandor, Nov 19 2013, 3:38pm :

How is the PS4 outdated when you can't even purchase a consumer level APU of that power (yet), and cannot buy a machine with 8GB GDDR5 unless you use multiple graphics cards in which case you will be miles away from the 140w the PS4 draws?

That level of power with that low power draw and at that form factor and price point is anything but outdated.

*snip*

Edited by Caleo, Nov 19 2013, 9:59pm :

ROFLCOPTERS said,

Just picked this gem out of your post.
You know the GPU in a PS4 is somewhere around the HD7850/HD7870 level? Those cards are 18 months old.
Add in other comedies like the 500GB sata-2 laptop hard disk and you see why this is a $400 piece of kit. It's priced that way because you get about $400 of performance.

Please, don't try equating it to proper hardware in PCs.

I know that but what I was referring to was an APU with the same level of graphics. Yes you can purchase a seperate graphics card (with the additional power overhead), BUT the AMD APUs available on the market to consumers have much more underpowered graphics built in. Point being the technology is not (yet) off-the-shelf components available to consumers so comparing it like-for-like and saying it is underpowered is short sighted nonsense.

-adrian- said,

Why even calling it APU and not SoC. And why bother with shared memory? And what does outdated hardware have to do with a bargain?

ROFLCOPTERS said,

Just picked this gem out of your post.
You know the GPU in a PS4 is somewhere around the HD7850/HD7870 level? Those cards are 18 months old.
Add in other comedies like the 500GB sata-2 laptop hard disk and you see why this is a $400 piece of kit. It's priced that way because you get about $400 of performance.

Please, don't try equating it to proper hardware in PCs.


I found his post to be incredibly strange, as well as the amount of people who actually liked it. I think because this Jaguar CPU has 8 cores, he believes it's actually a really good CPU, although it's probably at least two generations behind the current low to mid end Intel CPU. If you wanted to, you could build a $500-$600 small form factor gaming PC with a Radeon HD 7870 that offers 2.56 TFLOPS as opposed to the PS4's 1.84 TFLOPS.

You can custom build a much more powerful pc system. Of course it's going to cost more and look like a beast, but it's easily doable. It took pcs a while to catch up to 360 and ps3 but this time the consoles are already outdated.

stevan said,
You can custom build a much more powerful pc system. Of course it's going to cost more and look like a beast, but it's easily doable. It took pcs a while to catch up to 360 and ps3 but this time the consoles are already outdated.

Pricing out a mini ATX system with a quad core AMD, 8GB ram, a 7850 gfx card, 500GB hard drive and such like can be done for the $550 range. That's me...as one guy...buying from Newegg after the middlemen have added their cut. Obviously Sony isn't paying full price when they buy their components in batches of millions which is why they bring the PS4 in at around $400. They're probably paying a few dollars over base tops.

They make the profit on the games and the subscriptions.

Maybe because hardware has plateaued after the 360/PS3 were released. Why add in more hardware while its completely useless and unnecessary, the hardware both the XBO and the PS4 got are more then plenty to in a few months-years give us stunningly beautiful 1080 imagery on the screen, so ya'll can enjoy the scenery, count the leaves on a rose in the field. Count grass and look at debris in super high resolution.

They aren't miles behind anyways, it isn't an off the shelf GPU that they jammed in there, and neither is the CPU. The ram on both machines is quite unique too and not something you see in even the highest end PC's.

Just cause they aren't up to match comparatively CPU wise... the CPU in previous gens had a lot more to deal with then basic game calculations, which are now offloaded to separate chips. The GPU is much, much more powerful then the ones put in the 360 and PS3.

I know everyone is counting on 4k pictures when gaming at the highest possible quality. But a big part of the people (at least here in NL and we aren't poor or out-dated) still have the older tube TV's. And few have full-HD 1080, most is 720 upscaled to 1080 at best. And not sure in the rest of the world, but people buy a TV to last 5+ years.

So why should Sony put in a massive triple cpu octocore i7, just cause they can. Or rather find something that should suit all the required needs and be within a decent price range AND low power.

I don't think anybody is saying that the PS4 is more powerful. Of course you can custom build a more powerful PC. It will just be more expensive, bigger form factor, and draw a lot more power.

The technology in play to achieve the power it has in that form factor with that little power draw and in particular at that price is hardly 'outdated' since the PC elite cannot even achieve it....

Shadowzz said,

Just cause they aren't up to match comparatively CPU wise... the CPU in previous gens had a lot more to deal with then basic game calculations, which are now offloaded to separate chips.

Quite an important point there. A large proportion of CPU usage for games is actually for audio which is now offloaded to separate dedicated chips, freeing up significant resources on the CPU.

Nilus said,

I know that but what I was referring to was an APU with the same level of graphics. Yes you can purchase a seperate graphics card (with the additional power overhead), BUT the AMD APUs available on the market to consumers have much more underpowered graphics built in. Point being the technology is not (yet) off-the-shelf components available to consumers so comparing it like-for-like and saying it is underpowered is short sighted nonsense.

Man... so bored of these PC gamers. Never seen such defense. Does it really matter? I couldn't care less how many textures or shadowing effects you gave. Gaming for me is being engrossed in the game you're playing and having fun.

At least with a console I never had to worry about 'could it look better' as I'm happy just playing along. Chill dudes, chill

ROFLCOPTERS said,

Pricing out a mini ATX system with a quad core AMD, 8GB ram, a 7850 gfx card, 500GB hard drive and such like can be done for the $550 range. That's me...as one guy...buying from Newegg after the middlemen have added their cut. Obviously Sony isn't paying full price when they buy their components in batches of millions which is why they bring the PS4 in at around $400. They're probably paying a few dollars over base tops.

They make the profit on the games and the subscriptions.


But, you would have your own dedicated GPU, as opposed to that integrated stuff, that comes with it's own cooling fan and pretty colors. I like the pretty colors.

neonspark said,
this speaks volumes to how low end these consoles are compared to pc gaming. and to how the console market has changed. in the past, consoles rivaled pcs at launch, today, they are nothing bug castrated boxes with little to no upgradeability other than the mass storage.

Ok, let's see if you can have a PC of that size, that makes little to no sound, and that can play very good looking games for the next 5 years @ 400$ - 500$

You know its funny i had a argument with a friend over power consumption the other day. I was telling him even IF you build a pc that can run lets say BF4 at the same rate a PS4 can SOMEHOW for less than 500 dollars which i dont think is possible. You will also be pulling 400-1000w compared to what 140 during games? You also talking about 5-6 times the electric cost a year atleast. That ps4 is going to cost you around $20 a year where as that PC is easily going to be $150+.

Not to mention the much higher chance of individual parts going outand have to spend money on replacing.

Nilus said,
I don't think anybody is saying that the PS4 is more powerful.

Nilus said,
How is the PS4 outdated when you can't even purchase a consumer level APU of that power.

You actually did. -adrian- made a good point that it's not fair to call something outdated as a bargain. I guess we'll just have to disagree. I know I would have been willing to pay for a $999 high end Xbox console if it were an option. But that's just me.

That is completely out of context. Me saying that the consumer APUs available are not of the same power to the one in the PS4 is not the same as me saying that the PS4 is more powerful than a custom built PC in general.

*snip*

Edited by Caleo, Nov 19 2013, 10:10pm :

ROFLCOPTERS said,

Just picked this gem out of your post.
You know the GPU in a PS4 is somewhere around the HD7850/HD7870 level? Those cards are 18 months old.


TRIPLE WUT? The memory on a PS4 is shared between the GPU and system so it's a grand total of 8GB. If you'd want to be more accurate you'd maybe point out that a titan has 6GB of dedicated onboard memory for itself. Then the system probably has another 8GB or 16GB in most cases.

Add in other comedies like the 500GB sata-2 laptop hard disk and you see why this is a $400 piece of kit. It's priced that way because you get about $400 of performance.

Please, don't try equating it to proper hardware in PCs.

This is the first time console's that didn't leap frog past current high end computers
The PS4/XB1 are still pretty impressive and when you have a closed system where they control the hardware and the software, and games are far more optimized to the specific hardware, it gives them more longevity. Part of the console's charm is you put the game in and it just works.

I'm not saying I could not built a more powerful computer, and have the pc version of some games run better, but at the moment, I can't do it for $400/$500.

Houtei said,
You know its funny i had a argument with a friend over power consumption the other day. I was telling him even IF you build a pc that can run lets say BF4 at the same rate a PS4 can SOMEHOW for less than 500 dollars which i dont think is possible. You will also be pulling 400-1000w compared to what 140 during games? You also talking about 5-6 times the electric cost a year atleast. That ps4 is going to cost you around $20 a year where as that PC is easily going to be $150+.

Not to mention the much higher chance of individual parts going outand have to spend money on replacing.

You got into an argument about that? lol.

Where I live a kWh of electricity costs between like 6-12 cents depending on the time of day. Taking an average of 10 cents to be easy. Then take a constantly loaded 400W PSU and run it for an entire year....non stop. It'll be about $350 in electricity for the year. Now, bare in mind that you'll never, in any sensible reality, have 400W being drawn 24/7/365. Not even close.

Also, how much is your playstation subscription for a year?

Arguing about power consumption as a reason to pick a PS4 is pretty funny.

Jose_49 said,

Ok, let's see if you can have a PC of that size, that makes little to no sound, and that can play very good looking games for the next 5 years @ 400$ - 500$

"very good looking" is clearly subjective.

Nilus said,
That is completely out of context. Me saying that the consumer APUs available are not of the same power to the one in the PS4 is not the same as me saying that the PS4 is more powerful than a custom built PC in general.

*snip*


Come on man, why throw personal insults? We're having a discussion. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about (ex: "PS4 has 8GB GDDR5. A $1000 GTX Titan only has 6GB, right?". "cannot buy a machine with 8GB GDDR5 unless you use multiple graphics cards"), but you don't see me calling you ignorant.

Edited by Caleo, Nov 19 2013, 10:21pm :

Nilus said,
That is completely out of context. Me saying that the consumer APUs available are not of the same power to the one in the PS4 is not the same as me saying that the PS4 is more powerful than a custom built PC in general.

*snip*

Out of context?

Neonspark, at the top, posted about how "low end" consoles are these days. You instantly replied with a list of (somewhat inaccurate) specs where you're clearly trying to refer to the power of a PS4.

Factually the hardware in a PS4 can't begin to approach what is available to the average PC gamer. I get the feeling you accept this point but don't pull the context card when someone actual mentions that fact.

Edited by Caleo, Nov 19 2013, 10:09pm :

I don't think you understand how electricity works. There's no magic dust that Sony sprinkled on the PS4 to make it use less power, and PCs with 600W power supplies do not continuously pull 600W of power.

And for a lot of people in this chain, perhaps you should look at mITX PCs, or anything that isn't 10 years old itself. It's pretty simple to build a high performance small form factor PC that can do 720 or 1080p gaming. The UI will probably be complete **** though, and you have to set it all up and configure it yourself, and deal with updates and all that other nonsense. That's where the consoles really win.

ROFLCOPTERS said,

Out of context?

Neonspark, at the top, posted about how "low end" consoles are these days. You instantly replied with a list of (somewhat inaccurate) specs where you're clearly trying to refer to the power of a PS4.

Factually the hardware in a PS4 can't begin to approach what is available to the average PC gamer. I get the feeling you accept this point but don't pull the context card when someone actual mentions that fact.

So what about it was inaccurate?

No you're entirely incorrect. What I said was that the APU they use in the PS4 is more powerful than an APU available to consumers. So you can't do a direct comparison. So you can't just say that the PS4 is 'out dated' since you can't grab that part off the shelf and build a comparable system yourself.

Of course you can custom build a PC yourself that is more powerful. It is insane to say otherwise. You could go and buy a high end i7 and GTX Titan which would blow the doors off a PS4 but you are looking at more cost and more power. How hard is that to understand?

I don't know how many times it has to be said but you need to look at the power available, the form factor, the power draw, price etc etc ALL of these factors need to be compared when looking at a comparison.

Saying you can build a more powerful PC than the PS4 is head-slappingly obvious but it is not comparible since it costs more and draws more power and has nowhere near the same form factor.

*snip*

Edited by Caleo, Nov 19 2013, 10:58pm :

Jose_49 said,
The games don't look bad, do they

Nice image comparison tool on this site. http://www.eurogamer.net/artic...-gen-vs-pc-face-off-preview

You can zoom in on the images down the page a little. Considering the PC is higher resolution than both the xbox or PS4 and still wipes the floor I'd be wary of investing in a console that you'll be using for at least 4 years with no chance of an upgrade if "graphics quality" is your thing.

Nilus said,

So what about it was inaccurate?

No you're entirely incorrect. What I said was that the APU they use in the PS4 is more powerful than an APU available to consumers. So you can't do a direct comparison. So you can't just say that the PS4 is 'out dated' since you can't grab that part off the shelf and build a comparable system yourself.

Of course you can custom build a PC yourself that is more powerful. It is insane to say otherwise. You could go and buy a high end i7 and GTX Titan which would blow the doors off a PS4 but you are looking at more cost and more power. How hard is that to understand?

I don't know how many times it has to be said but you need to look at the power available, the form factor, the power draw, price etc etc ALL of these factors need to be compared when looking at a comparison.

Saying you can build a more powerful PC than the PS4 is head-slappingly obvious but it is not comparible since it costs more and draws more power and has nowhere near the same form factor.

*snip*

Guess what gamers on PCs do? They build custom built computers. The current consoles are waay outdated bc your can build a pc that will display games much better.

PC gaming won't kill consoles, it's the underpowered hardware in the consoles that will do all this.

Edited by Caleo, Nov 19 2013, 10:26pm :

Nilus said,

So what about it was inaccurate?

No you're entirely incorrect. What I said was that the APU they use in the PS4 is more powerful than an APU available to consumers. So you can't do a direct comparison. So you can't just say that the PS4 is 'out dated' since you can't grab that part off the shelf and build a comparable system yourself.

Of course you can custom build a PC yourself that is more powerful. It is insane to say otherwise. You could go and buy a high end i7 and GTX Titan which would blow the doors off a PS4 but you are looking at more cost and more power. How hard is that to understand?

I don't know how many times it has to be said but you need to look at the power available, the form factor, the power draw, price etc etc ALL of these factors need to be compared when looking at a comparison.

Saying you can build a more powerful PC than the PS4 is head-slappingly obvious but it is not comparible since it costs more and draws more power and has nowhere near the same form factor.

*snip*

Well you posted stuff like this:
"- 8GB GDDR5 (a $1000 GTX Titan only has 6GB, right?)"

Which shows you have a pretty thin understanding of how the hardware is configured. You write that a Titan "ONLY has 6GB" and then posted that the PS4 has "8GB". You're attempting to suggest that the PS4 has a clear advantage in memory when in fact the memory on a PS4 is shared with the entire system.

I guess if you make your purchasing decisions on "form factor" and "power usage" then the PS4 is a clear winner...but you can't really be serious. That's laughable.

To be clear I have no problem with a PS4. It's likely a very capable console. The games probably look nice. It's probably $400 well spent for a lot of people. The only issue I have is when anyone tries to even hint that it's a better value proposition than even a mid-range PC. It simply isn't. For a start the PC games will always look better. It's guaranteed because the hardware is more powerful. A PC is also far more adaptable and has a far wider range of uses. Won't be firing up Office on a PS4 any time soon realistically. A games console is a specialised tool for playing games. Therefore, you'd really want it to >excel< at that one thing it's designed for. As mentioned it won't even best a general purpose PC built in 2012...and last time I checked this is 2013.

There's a curve and consoles aren't ahead of it.

Also how many PS4/Xbox owners also own a PC? I'd suggest it's almost all of them (younger kids aside...who aren't really the demographic on neowin). So why not just build a better PC and actually save in the end?

Edited by Caleo, Nov 19 2013, 10:49pm :

ROFLCOPTERS said,

You got into an argument about that? lol.

Where I live a kWh of electricity costs between like 6-12 cents depending on the time of day. Taking an average of 10 cents to be easy. Then take a constantly loaded 400W PSU and run it for an entire year....non stop. It'll be about $350 in electricity for the year. Now, bare in mind that you'll never, in any sensible reality, have 400W being drawn 24/7/365. Not even close.

Also, how much is your playstation subscription for a year?

Arguing about power consumption as a reason to pick a PS4 is pretty funny.

0 because i dont use plus. For xbox i pay for live and end up paying around 40 for a year? Far less than what i spend on my pc on things i dont really need for subscription crap. I wasnt using that as a reason to buy one i was using that in saying stop comparing a damn pc acting like you can get a PC and do everything you can on a ps4 or XO for the same price. I was just calculating 2 or 3 hours a day not to even mention most people just leave there pc on and a pc in standby uses about as much as a console running a game.

At 399 it is in fact a huge bargain. It does not matter that they COULD have put out a 1000 dollar console even though before they announced the price everyone was screaming it better not be more than 500. The amount of money they would waste on developing a 999 system they would NEVER make back cause i just dont think they would sell 1 million consoles at 999. They would only sell that to psycho pc gamers that are obsessed with resolutions and flops as in a small minority.

PCs have a major flaw gaming wise to me. Every year theres prolly 15-20 games i buy and 3-6 of those come to pc the rest are console only and maybe 1 of those pc games are even in my top 5.

Edited by Houtei, Nov 19 2013, 4:34pm :

Nilus said,

So what about it was inaccurate?

No you're entirely incorrect. What I said was that the APU they use in the PS4 is more powerful than an APU available to consumers. So you can't do a direct comparison. So you can't just say that the PS4 is 'out dated' since you can't grab that part off the shelf and build a comparable system yourself.

Of course you can custom build a PC yourself that is more powerful. It is insane to say otherwise. You could go and buy a high end i7 and GTX Titan which would blow the doors off a PS4 but you are looking at more cost and more power. How hard is that to understand?

I don't know how many times it has to be said but you need to look at the power available, the form factor, the power draw, price etc etc ALL of these factors need to be compared when looking at a comparison.

Saying you can build a more powerful PC than the PS4 is head-slappingly obvious but it is not comparible since it costs more and draws more power and has nowhere near the same form factor.

I don't know why the PC elite need to come off so butt-hurt about it...


When you say APU, are you talking specifically about AMD's offerings? Intel Atoms beats AMD's jaguar in gaming performance now. Someone did a benchmark somewhere. I believe it was on Anandtech. Nonetheless, you know the real point behind the jaguar is low-power consumption right, not raw power? It only has a 15% clock speed increase from what AMD offered years ago.

The "hurrdurr peeseemasturace" people are so annoying.
I game on both consoles and PC. Gaming is about much more than how the game looks (graphics) which seems to be what the peeseemasturace fails to grasp. It's the experience. Also, I prefer gaming with a device (a controller) which was actually designed with gaming in mind, not a device that was designed for inputting text and a pointing device. That being said, there are certain games I prefer on console, and certain games I prefer on PC. Each has their pros and cons.

Houtei said,
0 because i dont use plus. For xbox i pay for live and end up paying around 40 for a year? Far less than what i spend on my pc on things i dont really need for subscription crap. I wasnt using that as a reason to buy one i was using that in saying stop comparing a damn pc acting like you can get a PC and do everything you can on a ps4 or XO for the same price. I was just calculating 2 or 3 hours a day not to even mention most people just leave there pc on and a pc in standby uses about as much as a console running a game.

At 399 it is in fact a huge bargain. It does not matter that they COULD have put out a 1000 dollar console even though before they announced the price everyone was screaming it better not be more than 500. The amount of money they would waste on developing a 999 system they would NEVER make back cause i just dont think they would sell 1 million consoles at 999. They would only sell that to psycho pc gamers that are obsessed with resolutions and flops as in a small minority.

PCs have a major flaw gaming wise to me. Every year theres prolly 15-20 games i buy and 3-6 of those come to pc the rest are console only and maybe 1 of those pc games are even in my top 5.


They don't make their money back selling them at the price points they have been. The last part about the games is subjective. Games like Starcraft 2, which I love, can only be bought on the PC. What I believe ROFLCOPTERS is trying to say that in terms of the price/performance ratio, the console really isn't a bargain as some make it seem; you can't simply look at price. Something is a bargain if you get a good "bang for the buck." If you're not getting that bang, how is it a bargain? As we said previously, you can make a $550 PC that trumps the $400-$500 consoles.

Edited by AWilliams87, Nov 19 2013, 7:10pm :

Tha Bloo Monkee said,
The "hurrdurr peeseemasturace" people are so annoying.
I game on both consoles and PC. Gaming is about much more than how the game looks (graphics) which seems to be what the peeseemasturace fails to grasp. It's the experience. Also, I prefer gaming with a device (a controller) which was actually designed with gaming in mind, not a device that was designed for inputting text and a pointing device. That being said, there are certain games I prefer on console, and certain games I prefer on PC. Each has their pros and cons.

I prefer gaming on consoles as well. This discussion was really about specs, however. I love sitting on my bed, relaxing, playing call of duty.

stevan said,
You can custom build a much more powerful pc system. Of course it's going to cost more and look like a beast, but it's easily doable. It took pcs a while to catch up to 360 and ps3 but this time the consoles are already outdated.

Except when dealing with APUs. Like a bunch of others you are comparing apples to oranges on the marketplace.

I'm actually working on an APU based mini-pc for the future and it won't have a ton of graphical juice to it. Even the higher end Intel APU processors with the Intel HD Graphics 4600 doesn't compare to what next gen consoles can do.

APU = CPU + GPU on a single chip.

shinji257 said,

Except when dealing with APUs. Like a bunch of others you are comparing apples to oranges on the marketplace.

I'm actually working on an APU based mini-pc for the future and it won't have a ton of graphical juice to it. Even the higher end Intel APU processors with the Intel HD Graphics 4600 doesn't compare to what next gen consoles can do.

APU = CPU + GPU on a single chip.


But you can build a PC for the same price as a retail Xbox One, and get a dedicated HD7870 GPU, which has 2.56 TFLOPS, compared to Xbox One 1.31 TFLOPS. And seriously, you should stop calling Intel chips an APU. That's just AMD marketing crap.

AWilliams87 said,

But you can build a PC for the same price as a retail Xbox One, and get a dedicated HD7870 GPU, which has 2.56 TFLOPS, compared to Xbox One 1.31 TFLOPS. And seriously, you should stop calling Intel chips an APU. That's just AMD marketing crap.

Maybe you could, but it will be much much larger than a console and will suck magnitudes more power.

Half the point of a console is the chassis size, which easily fits into an entertainment system.

Lets try to keep it civil, ladies & gentlemen.

As far as consoles vs PC goes.. They both have their merits. With consoles, you get a worry free (well, sometimes!), compact and affordable package.. with PCs, you get raw power and utility (it's good for a lot more than just gaming!), at the expense of, well, expense.

There's no real winner - it really depends on your own preferences. In fact, the competition is nothing but good for (us) consumers.

threetonesun said,
You could buy a gaming laptop, it would be smaller and portable, if that's really the argument we're trying to make.

Errr... that's only part of the argument...
A laptop won't have the same amount of power for the price.

There's no way they're paying $100 for that chip.

Plus, there's $40 markup on the controller, according to this. Assuming people buy two, there's a decent margin on each console there.

well it is just a company making up prices for stuff. I you ask a reseller to give you a discount for one piece you will get it cheaper already. if you ask amd to give you a great discount if you buy 50 million of their cpus over the next 5 years - I guess you will be allowed a discount too:)

threetonesun said,
There's no way they're paying $100 for that chip.

You also have to remember that they purchasing these in bulk - thus the low price. Don't get it confused with consumer pricing and purchase.

I mean, they're paying less than $100 for that chip.

If anyone in this deal has razor thin margins, it's AMD. There's a reason everyone goes with them for consoles.

The CPU is made by AMD, I don't know where you got the idea that Sony makes it. And while AMD does have great APUs, they also don't have a huge general marketshare, and can switch to production for consoles when necessary. That's a big reason why they're in the Xbox One and PS4.

Well, if you see the iFixit teardown, the CPU says clearly "SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT" and the chip has a Sony IC code (CXD90026G).
Also, AMD went fabless a couple of years ago, all its processors are made by a spin-off company called GlobalFoundries.

The PS4 chip is made at TSMC not GF. And the PS4/X1 chip are primarily AMD designs which is why they are so similar. They both use AMD Jaguar CPU cores with GCN gpu cores. Both consoles are using mostly standard PC parts to save money. I don't blame Sony after the Cell fiasco.

I'm curious how they would have a break-even point with this kind of business strategy... Selling more games?

Playstation subscriptions,movie rentals and downloaded games.

I think historically nearly every if not all consoles are sold at a loss to be made up by game sales.

Cyborg_X said,
Playstation subscriptions,movie rentals and downloaded games.

I think historically nearly every if not all consoles are sold at a loss to be made up by game sales.


Both Microsoft and Sony (at least since the PS2) still doesn't have an overall positive return on investment with their gaming consoles, although the Xbox did start to make a profit in the last few years or so.

AWilliams87 said,

Both Microsoft and Sony (at least since the PS2) still doesn't have an overall positive return on investment with their gaming consoles, although the Xbox did start to make a profit in the last few years or so.

Do you mean just from the hardware or the whole Xbox division? As a whole software+hardware the Xbox has made profits in the last, i'd say, 3 years or so? Either way, this is why Sony and MS have both extended the life of their systems longer as time goes on.

Jose_49 said,
Since 2008, Xbox has received positive yearly income, though it isn't enough for the net income.

http://www.neowin.net/news/rep...early-3-billion-in-10-years

To add a bit more:

Most of that loss is on the back of the original though, the 360 did well, though the $1billion for the RRoD issue hurt things. Also the big dip in that chart has to be directly because of Xbox One R&D/production costs and so on. We'll see where things go from here on out.

games, playstation camera, extra controllers, playstation+ subscriptions, downloadable games etc. I expect sony to make a good profit from the ps4 over it's lifespan. The xbox one however is a bit more suspect as they spend so much on R&D, they spent $100m designing the controller alone. I expect sony to outsell the xbox one this generation by atleast 20%.

Jose_49 said,
Xbox division has lost close to $3 billion in the last 10 fiscal years. Sony's gaming division lost even more money in the same time period, with a lost of almost $5 billion.

What??? Sony lost of almost $5 billion? This is getting more non-sense to me.

Jose_49 said,
Since 2008, Xbox has received positive yearly income, though it isn't enough for the net income.

http://www.neowin.net/news/rep...early-3-billion-in-10-years

To add a bit more:

That's not how the accounting is done. Net income is only the current reporting period. You'd put it on your balance sheet if they were holding debt from then. Reported losses are also often not cash but are reductions in previously reported expected revenue or intangible things like goodwill. The real numbers can't put into such a simplistic bar graph.

Jose_49 said,
Hey, I'm washing my hands... That was from neowin's article, back at January
LOL... why are you washing your hands? You're just referring an interesting fact with that...

fusi0n said,
Sounds like they did a great job engineering this!

it's definitely a slick console. It sucks there are so many faulty units though caused by lack of care during production.

firey said,

it's definitely a slick console. It sucks there are so many faulty units though caused by lack of care during production.

The same care that they have with others products such iphones.

Brony said,

The same care that they have with others products such iphones.

iPhones seems to have quality control at last..

PS4 ............................................................................... seems NOT

Mackster said,
Ah yes, cost to manufacture $200. Sell to raped customers: $800.

You forgot mandatory Two Year Contracts for Online Services (Three years for Canada) and planned obsolescence in 24 Months.

NeoandGeo said,
Should have taken the cell phone philosophy and sold it for $1,000.

Or should taken Apple philosophy and sell it for $2000