PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[Skiver Veteran]

I know, but I don't buy that answer as much as it comes across on face value. TLoU came out in 2013, and we've already had a UC4 delay. Sony don't push or pressure ND, or else you'd have seen UC4 rushed out for this year to avoid the internet saying Sony has no games for 2015. I just do not think it's easy for them to make a game in the vein of UC/TLoU at 60FPS, and time alone simply won't make that a reality. The PS4 has it's limits. As I pointed out above, even on the PS3 they didn't opt to expand to 720/60, they kept 720/30 the whole way through and just made the games prettier.

 

Now I get you

I'm potentially just a sucker, but I took at as he said it. I work for a software development company and for around 2 years I worked very close to the Dev Team. I know just how many corners are cut because of time and deadlines so when he says it, I believe him.

I can't count how many times I had conversations with the lead developer that included the phrases "stop cutting corners, well if you do this properly  and if you went for quality for once in your life" which unfortunately were 99% of the time, not his fault but product managements just wanting that feature out!

[+Asmodai MVC]

That I don't think it'll be quite as simple as they'll get it done with their next game. The hardware this gen is easier to work with than CELL, so I don't think the margins for improvement will be as great as some of the shoddy 1st attempts at PS3 games, versus late life cycle.

I don't think there's anything simple about what ICE and Naughty Dog do to push performance in their games.

While there where certainly shoddy titles on PS3 I don't think many would consider the first Uncharted one of them. Yet there is a very large difference in quality between that and The Last of Us on the same PS3 hardware.

The PS4 hardware is easier to work with than the PS3 but that's because you can treat the PS4 like a PC and that's what most, if not all, of these early games are doing (including almost certainly ND games).

That's a quick way to get out games but it's NOT the best way to utilize the hardware. To fully utilize the PS4 hardware you have to design a game to offload more (non-graphics) tasks from the comparatively weak CPUs to the GPGPU.

That's a poor design for a PC which wasn't designed to run graphics and non-graphics GPU tasks simultaneously and typically don't have weak CPUs in the first place (it's more common for PCs to have strong CPUs and comparatively weak -integrated- GPUs.)

It's also completely different from how games were designed last gen when the consoles weren't even capable of non-graphics GPU processing. Again this means right now pretty much no one is doing that.

It's new and non-trivial to try to pull non-graphics tasks from the CPU to the GPU. It's not just a simple engine tweak and it couldn't happen at all on games that needed to run on last gen consoles as well.

It's going to take a very different and console specific game engine and heck 3rd parties may not even bother but that's exactly the kind of thing ICE does.

They'll push the PS4 hardware because they don't have to worry about cross platform support and they want to show the world what the hardware is capable of.

[President Devil]

It's also a testament to how underpowered the consoles are, when they're trying to make this big name title exclusive look as good as they can, and seeing how it's already been pushed back before, something's got to give, in this case it's the framerate. 

 

Optimizing the levels, in this case, my guess, would probably mean cutting down on detail, and some size, so that less has to be drawn (using creative tricks of the trade) so that you can push out the scene at a faster framerate.

 

Bingo!

 

But we all knew it, right from the start.

[George P Global Moderator]

Bingo!

 

But we all knew it, right from the start.

 

 

They really need to go back to a shorter lifecycle for consoles, not the one we had in the 360/ps3 gen, 7-8 years is too much.  5 years tops is ok, BUT the key here is that the next ones should also stay x86 like they are now, so we keep backwards compatibility going, it'd help the developers because they can keep the XB1/PS4 code going and don't have to start over on some new hardware.

[President Devil]

They really need to go back to a shorter lifecycle for consoles, not the one we had in the 360/ps3 gen, 7-8 years is too much.  5 years tops is ok, BUT the key here is that the next ones should also stay x86 like they are now, so we keep backwards compatibility going, it'd help the developers because they can keep the XB1/PS4 code going and don't have to start over on some new hardware.

 

Yep, Xbox Two in 2016 together with the Nintendo NX. Just release a new more powerful console, cut this gen short, but keep EVERYTHING compatible with the Xbox One and give that console at least another 2-3 years of software support, with every title just being better on the Two.

MS is actually the only one to be able to pull that tiering off (together with Valve) since their software development is so PC like with DirectX accross all their hardware, that it's win-win for them if they do. It'll be Steambox done right with a new performance tier every 3 or so years (not different models at once). But complete compatiblity needs to be there, if they make another gen so fast and none of the current titles work (no reason why, but hypothetically) then they might as well shut up shop.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Yep, Xbox Two in 2016 together with the Nintendo NX. Just release a new more powerful console, cut this gen short, but keep EVERYTHING compatible with the Xbox One and give that console at least another 2-3 years of software support, with every title just being better on the Two.

MS is actually the only one to be able to pull that tiering off (together with Valve) since their software development is so PC like with DirectX accross all their hardware, that it's win-win for them if they do. It'll be Steambox done right with a new performance tier every 3 or so years (not different models at once). But complete compatiblity needs to be there, if they make another gen so fast and none of the current titles work (no reason why, but hypothetically) then they might as well shut up shop.

Exactly. Backwards compatibility isn't an issue now that consoles are literally just budget PCs with a custom interface. What's annoying is that CPU technology has barely improved since the PS4 and XB1 were released. There was no need to use such a massively underclocked CPU - if they had included an i5 at a sensible clock speed it would still be able to match virtually any PC today. The GPU was different but they should have at least picked a high-end model. Even if they were to release an updated model I have no faith that they wouldn't make the same mistakes.

 

As for Steam Machines, they're an entirely separate entity. They have no fixed specs, can be made by any manufacturer and hit a variety of price points. If they're hugely successful then Microsoft and Sony might pay attention but I think they'll be more of a slow burn. I think they'll come into their own in a couple of years when the budget models can easily manage 1080p @ 60fps and when the high end models can handle 4K.

 

At the moment Microsoft is the underdog of this generation, so they're the most likely to push for the next generation first. Maybe we'll see an XB1 Plus with 2TB storage and powerful enough to hit 1080p @ 60fps for even demanding games like The Witcher 3. With Windows 10 Microsoft has the capability to leverage that to its advantage, even going as far as to allow all XB1 games to run on PC natively. It strikes me as unlikely but Microsoft needs to do something big to take the lead in the next generation.

[Luc2k]

There was no need to use such a massively underclocked CPU - if they had included an i5 at a sensible clock speed it would still be able to match virtually any PC today. The GPU was different but they should have at least picked a high-end model. Even if they were to release an updated model I have no faith that they wouldn't make the same mistakes.

As much as I dislike underpowered consoles, I don't think and i5 would be feasible. For one thing, it probably costs as much as the whole APU and that would be mean increasing the budget to add a discrete GPU which probably would have required more space and better cooling. Alternatively, they could have gone full Intel, but, while their GPUs aren't as bad as they used to be, they're still very far away those in the current gen. Another factor is that Intel adds their most powerful GPU in very expensive CPUs instead of lower end parts where they might actually make sense.

 

Anyway, now that HBM is out, and if Sony/MS go for it, we might actually be looking at very powerful and compact hardware by the end of 2016.

[George P Global Moderator]

Exactly. Backwards compatibility isn't an issue now that consoles are literally just budget PCs with a custom interface. What's annoying is that CPU technology has barely improved since the PS4 and XB1 were released. There was no need to use such a massively underclocked CPU - if they had included an i5 at a sensible clock speed it would still be able to match virtually any PC today. The GPU was different but they should have at least picked a high-end model. Even if they were to release an updated model I have no faith that they wouldn't make the same mistakes.

 

As for Steam Machines, they're an entirely separate entity. They have no fixed specs, can be made by any manufacturer and hit a variety of price points. If they're hugely successful then Microsoft and Sony might pay attention but I think they'll be more of a slow burn. I think they'll come into their own in a couple of years when the budget models can easily manage 1080p @ 60fps and when the high end models can handle 4K.

 

At the moment Microsoft is the underdog of this generation, so they're the most likely to push for the next generation first. Maybe we'll see an XB1 Plus with 2TB storage and powerful enough to hit 1080p @ 60fps for even demanding games like The Witcher 3. With Windows 10 Microsoft has the capability to leverage that to its advantage, even going as far as to allow all XB1 games to run on PC natively. It strikes me as unlikely but Microsoft needs to do something big to take the lead in the next generation.

 

I think they went with what they did because they wanted a integrated CPU+GPU on the same chip design and they also got a pretty good deal from AMD I bet.   Also probably figured 8 cores vs 4 cores (I doubt they'd use intels hyperthreading) would make up for it and also allow developers to split up work a bit more, instead of 4 cores at 8 threads you'll get 8 cores at 16, well, 7 cores for the game anyways.

 

I don't know about 2016, but if they're really pressed, then 2017 could see a Xbox One +, if it's fully compatible with the current hardware, and I don't see why not, then there shouldn't be any issues, it'd just be the difference between a game running at 30fps or at 60fps with the new XB1+ etc.  It's doable, and at 2017 it'd be 4 years into the life cycle, I don't think early adopters would be mad, since the games will still run on the current system, just at a lower res and or framerate.

As much as I dislike underpowered consoles, I don't think and i5 would be feasible. For one thing, it probably costs as much as the whole APU and that would be mean increasing the budget to add a discrete GPU which probably would have required more space and better cooling. Alternatively, they could have gone full Intel, but, while their GPUs aren't as bad as they used to be, they're still very far away those in the current gen. Another factor is that Intel adds their most powerful GPU in very expensive CPUs instead of lower end parts where they might actually make sense.

 

Anyway, now that HBM is out, and if Sony/MS go for it, we might actually be looking at very powerful and compact hardware by the end of 2016.

 

HBM is good tech but AMD has to overcome it's memory size limits of 4GB.  Till then they can't use it in new systems, unless you want to downgrade from 8GB to 4GB but gain more bandwidth.    Who knows by late 2016 though, AMD could fix it and we could see 6 and 8GB HBM cards coming out, a Fury X v2 for example.  

[Luc2k]

HBM is good tech but AMD has to overcome it's memory size limits of 4GB.  Till then they can't use it in new systems, unless you want to downgrade from 8GB to 4GB but gain more bandwidth.    Who knows by late 2016 though, AMD could fix it and we could see 6 and 8GB HBM cards coming out, a Fury X v2 for example.  

There's nothing to fix, HBM2 is coming in 2016 and it will double HBM1's specs. Even if there would be no HBM2, you have to remember that Mantle, Vulkan, DX12 have the ability to pool the memory of multiple GPUs, although I'm not sure how/if that would work in an APU, if at all. Have you seen Project Quantum which features two Fury chips still on the ancient 28nm process? Something like that is what I'm thinking for late 2016, just smaller, cheaper and a lot more budget friendly.

 

[George P Global Moderator]

There's nothing to fix, HBM2 is coming in 2016 and it will double HBM1's specs. Even if there would be no HBM2, you have to remember that Mantle, Vulkan, DX12 have the ability to pool the memory of multiple GPUs, although I'm not sure how/if that would work in an APU, if at all. Have you seen Project Quantum which features two Fury chips still on the ancient 28nm process? Something like that is what I'm thinking for late 2016, just smaller, cheaper and a lot more budget friendly.

 

 

I've seen that, it looks cool, but right now the fact remains that HBM1 if you will, can only give you 4GB max per GPU, and they're not going to use two of them in a console.  So they'll have to wait for the next version that allows for more vram per GPU. 

[Luc2k]

I've seen that, it looks cool, but right now the fact remains that HBM1 if you will, can only give you 4GB max per GPU, and they're not going to use two of them in a console.  So they'll have to wait for the next version that allows for more vram per GPU. 

I did say late 2016, didn't I? The max supported memory right now is irrelevant, unlike difference in used space when compared to GDDR5.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Consoles aren't going to turn into PCs, so people wanting modular boxes to play around with just... have to buy a PC. Imagine that!

 

The amount of money spent on marketing, development and R&D by the console crews does not justify being able to have very short cycles (2~3 years). People have been saying for years consoles will have to do shorter cycles or else, and they keep getting proven wrong. You can say you feel the PS3 and 360 dragged on too long, and there is nothing wrong with feeling that, but the market kept buying them and that's what happens with consoles.

 

So it goes back to if you want short cycles, annual upgrades and the best of the best graphics, buy a gaming PC. What is there to gain in narrowing the market by saying consoles should effectively become mini-PCs or "steam boxes"? Why not both? It gets more people gaming, and understandably the big point, helps people who cannot afford the upkeep of PC gaming.

 

Windows 8 was absolute trash, so yeah, maybe Windows 10 will encourage more steam like boxes under TVs. Even if so, I still say, why not both? Not everything needs to be streamlined into identical products slapped with a logo of a different company.

[George P Global Moderator]

I did say late 2016, didn't I? The max supported memory right now is irrelevant, unlike difference in used space when compared to GDDR5.

 

Irrelevant in this context of consoles, sure, but doesn't help them much in the PC space.  I'm not going to go off topic at this point but just saying, look at the Fury X right now, it still needs work to match the Titan X.

[George P Global Moderator]

Consoles aren't going to turn into PCs, so people wanting modular boxes to play around with just... have to buy a PC. Imagine that!

 

The amount of money spent on marketing, development and R&D by the console crews does not justify being able to have very short cycles (2~3 years). People have been saying for years consoles will have to do shorter cycles or else, and they keep getting proven wrong. You can say you feel the PS3 and 360 dragged on too long, and there is nothing wrong with feeling that, but the market kept buying them and that's what happens with consoles.

 

So it goes back to if you want short cycles, annual upgrades and the best of the best graphics, buy a gaming PC. What is there to gain in narrowing the market by saying consoles should effectively become mini-PCs or "steam boxes"? Why not both? It gets more people gaming, and understandably the big point, helps people who cannot afford the upkeep of PC gaming.

 

Windows 8 was absolute trash, so yeah, maybe Windows 10 will encourage more steam like boxes under TVs. Even if so, I still say, why not both? Not everything needs to be streamlined into identical products slapped with a logo of a different company.

 

I don't think anyone expects a 2-3 year cycle, but the older 5, 6 years tops, works out fine, compared to 7-9yrs.  The last gen kept selling because there wasn't anything else new coming anytime soon, little choice for console gamers when that's all you have.  Once the new consoles came we saw how hungry the market was for something new with the record sales.   

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I don't think anyone expects a 2-3 year cycle, but the older 5, 6 years tops, works out fine, compared to 7-9yrs.  The last gen kept selling because there wasn't anything else new coming anytime soon, little choice for console gamers when that's all you have.  Once the new consoles came we saw how hungry the market was for something new with the record sales.   

 

5~6 years has always been around the time for new hardware to come out. 7~9 years is usually just the amount of time something will continue to be supported/stay on shop shelves.

[Luc2k]

Irrelevant in this context of consoles, sure, but doesn't help them much in the PC space.  I'm not going to go off topic at this point but just saying, look at the Fury X right now, it still needs work to match the Titan X.

Titan X is not an apt comparison considering the price difference (unlike the 980 Ti). Anyway, I wasn't talking PCs, just guessing what the next possible console will have, whenever that happens. It's probably going to be some low power Zen+ core APU with 8GB (or more) and in a much smaller package from HBM and the smaller manufacturing CPU/GPU nodes, unless Nvidia or Intel come up with something revolutionary in the meantime.

[soniqstylz]

Bingo!

 

But we all knew it, right from the start.

 

Um, so with a GTX Titan currently costing $899.99, how much were you expecting consoles to cost?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Um, so with a GTX Titan currently costing $899.99, how much were you expecting consoles to cost?

$599 goes down well

[George P Global Moderator]

Um, so with a GTX Titan currently costing $899.99, how much were you expecting consoles to cost?

 

No ones expecting that level of hardware in a console, for power and heat reasons, but jokes aside, even something low end, like a GTX 650 level GPU would be how much exactly?   Remember, all they're doing is buying the GPU, in bulk, which cuts the price down even more.     For systems that started in at $400 and $500, it's hard to say they couldn't have opted for better GPUs.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

No ones expecting that level of hardware in a console, for power and heat reasons, but jokes aside, even something low end, like a GTX 650 level GPU would be how much exactly?   Remember, all they're doing is buying the GPU, in bulk, which cuts the price down even more.     For systems that started in at $400 and $500, it's hard to say they couldn't have opted for better GPUs.

 

That still requires some decent cooling does it not? Remember we get one fan inside these consoles and they are tightly packed. The PS4 isn't the coolest or quietest console as it is, I struggle to see how they could work with dissipating even more heat. Mobile style options for CPU/GPU were a given really.

 

Even putting a 7200RPM drive into the PS4 raises temps a bit. Sure a SSD drive would be nice and cool, but they cost too much.

 

The XB1 was only that price as well due to Kinect, so it's not as if it's ceiling for internal components was $100 higher than the PS4. We seen the opposite, MS put in weaker hardware at a higher price point, due to Kinect.

[George P Global Moderator]

That still requires some decent cooling does it not? Remember we get one fan inside these consoles and they are tightly packed. The PS4 isn't the coolest or quietest console as it is, I struggle to see how they could work with dissipating even more heat. Mobile style options for CPU/GPU were a given really.

 

Even putting a 7200RPM drive into the PS4 raises temps a bit. Sure a SSD drive would be nice and cool, but they cost too much.

 

The XB1 was only that price as well due to Kinect, so it's not as if it's ceiling for internal components was $100 higher than the PS4. We seen the opposite, MS put in weaker hardware at a higher price point, due to Kinect.

 

The 650 is the low end, it doesn't have much in the way of cooling, normal HSF setup.  But that's for a full video card, there's other considerations taken into account when those are designed, I think the cooling would've been less for a console setup.  But heck, say mobile style GPU,  both AMD and Nvidia have better performing mobile GPUs out    For example, the Radeon HD 8970M, hit the market back in May 2013, it can do 2,304 GFlops with a TDP of 100watts.    That's better than both consoles right now, by a fair bit, probably enough to give us 60fps in any games to date on both sides.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

The 650 is the low end, it doesn't have much in the way of cooling, normal HSF setup. But that's for a full video card, there's other considerations taken into account when those are designed, I think the cooling would've been less for a console setup. But heck, say mobile style GPU, both AMD and Nvidia have better performing mobile GPUs out For example, the Radeon HD 8970M, hit the market back in May 2013, it can do 2,304 GFlops with a TDP of 100watts. That's better than both consoles right now, by a fair bit, probably enough to give us 60fps in any games to date on both sides.

The innards of these consoles need to be tied down a decent bit before launch, don't forget that. Something hitting shelves in 2013 would have been far too risky to bet on. Remember how lucky Sony got with memory prices or else we would only have 4GB in the PS4.

I think some of the PC guys totally underestimate the small margins and planning that has to go into launching a console. Which doesn't surprise me as so many PC gamers do drive by posts screaming look at these PC benchmarks, y u console be so weak?! Consoles don't have top end models to eat up the losses that could be made on budget PC components. Its one console, one price, end of. There's no $1000 PS4 to allow there to be a $149 entry model.

The manufacturers get slated when they sell at a loss, the worst example being the PS3, which to be fair nearly sank Sony. Then when they protect a slim margin its why aren't you putting more expensive innards inside?! MS got slated because they prioritised kinect and had to divert funds from the innards. Sony probably couldn't have done much better to have a margin to live on at 399.

If you can't be happy with sensible business practices and the power to price ratio consoles offer, game on a PC. It is literally that simple. I can only imagine if some of the PC gamers around here were in charge of Sony or MS. They'd either make a replica of a PC, and price it appropriately, and market share would tank. Or they'd make this dream powerhouse console, sell it at 399, and do a Ken Kutaragi and put the company in billions of debt.

[George P Global Moderator]

The innards of these consoles need to be tied down a decent bit before launch, don't forget that. Something hitting shelves in 2013 would have been far too risky to bet on. Remember how lucky Sony got with memory prices or else we would only have 4GB in the PS4.

I think some of the PC guys totally underestimate the small margins and planning that has to go into launching a console. Which doesn't surprise me as so many PC gamers do drive by posts screaming look at these PC benchmarks, y u console be so weak?! Consoles don't have top end models to eat up the losses that could be made on budget PC components. Its one console, one price, end of. There's no $1000 PS4 to allow their to be a $149 entry model.

The manufacturers get slated when they sell at a loss, the worst example being the PS3, which to be fair nearly sank Sony. Then when they protect a slim margin its why aren't you putting more expensive innards inside?! MS got slated because they prioritised kinect and had to divert funds from the innards. Sony probably couldn't have done much better to have a margin to live on at 399.

If you can't be happy with sensible business practices and the power to price ratio consoles offer, game on a PC. It is literally that simple. I can only imagine if some of the PC gamers around here were in charge of Sony or MS. They'd either make a replica of a PC, and price it appropriately, and market share would tank. Or they'd make this dream powerhouse console, sell it at 399, and do a Ken Kutaragi and put the company in billions of debt.

 

I was expecting you to bring up the date as a possible issue,  HD 7970M, hit the market back in April 2012, 2,176 GFlops, 75watts.     And these are the dates AMD released them to OEMs to use, they probably had them in the works a bit before then also, console makers could've gotten first dibs on them ahead of PC makers. 

 

It's just a case of them wanting to keep costs low at the sake of performance, while in the past consoles tended to push ahead, at least in the start.  I'm fine with that, but at the same time people expecting or demanding much out of this gen shouldn't get their hopes too high, I bet that developers hit the peak with what they can do soon compared to last gen.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I was expecting you to bring up the date as a possible issue, HD 7970M, hit the market back in April 2012, 2,176 GFlops, 75watts. And these are the dates AMD released them to OEMs to use, they probably had them in the works a bit before then also, console makers could've gotten first dibs on them ahead of PC makers.

It's just a case of them wanting to keep costs low at the sake of performance, while in the past consoles tended to push ahead, at least in the start. I'm fine with that, but at the same time people expecting or demanding much out of this gen shouldn't get their hopes too high, I bet that developers hit the peak with what they can do soon compared to last gen.

Well back in the PS1/PS2 days games were native to their TVs, as TVs were SD for quite a while. PCs had higher resolution gaming, on CRTs. When the PS3 came out and 360 it was the first effort at HD for consoles, and I do agree this gen we expected a minimum standard of 1080 to be native to HD, not scaled like last generation from 720 or sub 720. For the most part the PS4 has managed this.

FPS really relies heavily on the hardware to be able to push 60 locked. If you can't do 60 locked, or 60 with dips just down to the mid or low 50s, you're better off locking at 30 and upping other aspects of the graphics.

As I said above people can want whatever the heck they want, but after watching the last 10 years of console gaming you're being incredibly naive if you think any of the times Sony or MS took a huge loss on a console, it was sustainable. MS did when they launched the Xbox brand as you'd expect a startup venture to do. Now? Of course not. Or we would have had the One at 399 with Kinect. Sony are the poster boys though for what happens when you sell at a loss, the PS3 happens.

So really, you either maintain a small but manageable margin, or you sell at a loss. Good luck if you're a PC gamer that thinks another generation of red on either companies balance sheets, even if only for a few years, was a good idea.

My personal opinion on this matter is either some PC gamers who enter this debate are incredibly naive or haven't watched the carnage of the PS3 on financials close enough. Or, the more bitter opinion, and controversial, if you're pro-Xbox and frustrated that MS chose Kinect as a priority, and Sony benefited from that, you'd rather just blindly bash all console gaming technically now, with no substance other than "check these PC components, consulz are weak!!". Because even when you throw the prices of mid range graphics cards my way, I gave a perfectly good answer to that above. MS and Sony do not have the luxury of selling high end consoles with big profit margins to make up for the tiny margins on low end stuff. Nvidia, AMD and Intel have high value components that allow them to aggressively pursue the budget end of the market. Not to mention the size of the PC market for components when you factor in all the devices worldwide Intel, AMD and Nvidia can reach. Sony and MS have had to rely on other parts of the company to do this when launching consoles selling at a loss, and that seriously can hurt company financials. See the PS3 bailouts again. If Sony didn't make a ton of money on Japanese life insurance the PS3 would surely have destroyed that whole company. That is not sustainable, and I for one am happy to live with some compromises if it doesn't mean 2 billion of debt again. The arguments in this topic more closely cover the priorities of Sony vs MS, than PC debates. Those priorities surrounding MS and Kinect, and the way in which the internal budget faired against Sony. As consoles are not modular, we are stuck with whatever decisions were made at launch, even if the idiot behind them gets fired (Mattrick, Kutaragi).

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Just to follow up on yesterdays debate

 

The PlayStation 4 costs $381 for Sony to build, $18 under its retail price of $399. The figure comes from a hardware teardown by research firm IHS that included the bill of materials, which amounts to $372, as well as per-unit cost of assembly in the assessment. The teardown notes that the system's processor and memory account for about half of the cost of the entire console at $188, and that the PS4's 500 GB hard drive is $1 cheaper than the 120 GB one found in the PS3, thanks to the "major decline in HDD costs during the past four years."

 

 

http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/19/ps4-costs-381-to-make-according-to-hardware-teardown/

 

The combined cost of parts and manufacturing everything that comes with the Xbox One