4 ms·

I'd suggest those people "in the know" are probably talking out of their arse. It's commonplace for consoles to go through a number of hardware revisions over

I'd suggest those people "in the know" are probably talking out of their arse. It's commonplace for consoles to go through a number of hardware revisions over the lifetime of the console. These revisions are rarely made for performance reasons, but instead would be made to improve reliability, security and manufacturing cost. Setting aside security (which is would be done as reaction to a hack that can't be patched with software), the whole idea is to increase the margins for the manufacturer. Note that the brand owner may, in some cases, sell consoles at a loss, but the manufacturer is very unlikely to be working to the same business model.

vvanders 9y ago
Eh, I've been in the consumer electronics space a while and it's pretty common for a SoC/CPU vendor to offer a time-based tiered price as a part of a procurement contract. As your chip goes from cutting edge process technology($$$) to mid-tier($$) and commodity($) they usually pass that savings along, otherwise they would incentivize going for a mid-cycle refresh and suddenly a large revenue stream for your chip dries up as a product moves to a (potentially) different vendor.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "as a product moves to a (potentially) different vendor." The only other manufacturer of x64 CPUs in Intel, and the only other manufacturer of (competitive) GPUs is Nvidia. Why would Microsoft or Sony incur the high NRE cost to switch to two different suppliers mid-cycle just so they can shave a small amount off their unit cost? That's not to say AMD wouldn't pass on some of the savings to Microsoft and Sony, I'm sure they would, but it's not likely to be a one-sided deal.
  - vvanders 9y ago
    The same reason you fight tooth and nail for pennies on the BoM, because at scale every cent matters. There's also the inverse where if the jump to the next chip is small(see XB One/S/X) you may migrate early and EoL a product before planned leaving a chip production line with no product. You also always have multiple vendors bidding so if one of them offers a sliding scale you're going to use that as leverage against the other vendors.
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      > "The same reason you fight tooth and nail for pennies on the BoM, because at scale every cent matters." It doesn't matter if the potential savings are sunk by the NRE costs of shifting to new vendors before the projected end of the product. You have to look at cost holistically.
      - vvanders 9y ago
        Well, duh ;). When you're talking 15M+ units being able to drop $1-2 from BOM is a huge motivator for things like this. When you get into the millions of dollars worth of savings you can fund a lot of engineering time. They also may never go through with the switch but use it as leverage for a better deal. Back when I did SoC evals we'd take products right up to the brink of production just to apply pressure. It was almost like a game of chicken between 2-3 vendors to see who blinked first and gave us a better BoM/deal on the core chip. These weren't easy bring-ups but usually were vastly different GPUs + CPU combos. It's very much a thing that happens, at least back when I was involved with stuff like that ~6 years ago.
        ZenoArrow 9y ago
        I don't doubt it happens with other electronics manufacturing, and negotiating with multiple vendors is a good negotiating tactic, my comments are purely directed at the console business. If you look at the average lifetime of a (successful) console, you're looking at between 5 to 10 years. Within that time, multiple revisions take place, often to replace peripheral components to reduce costs, but in the case of the longest living consoles they will often get a design refresh, including a redesign of the CPU / GPU. I can think of only one example in recent memory where a console switched manufacturers for these core components during its lifetime (that example being the GPU for the Xbox 360, which switched from AMD to IBM). In the case of the Xbox 360, IBM were already manufacturing the CPU, and the redesign combined the CPU and GPU into a single SoC. Aside from that one example, there haven't (to my knowledge) been any other examples of companies switching manufacturers for their core components mid cycle. Contrast this with the PC business, where OEMs will frequently swap between motherboard/CPU/GPU manufacturers, and you'd have to wonder what makes the dynamics in the console market different.
magila 9y ago
Protip: When you accuse people of talking out of their arse, don't then proceed to talk out of your arse.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  Protip: When you disagree with someone, try to offer more than just an ad hominem. If you disagree with something I've said, by all means explain why.
  - magila 9y ago
    I'm not trying to start a debate here. It's obvious from your posts that you don't have any particular knowledge of AMD's console dealings, or even console dealings in general. You only speak to generalities which are well known among even casual observers of the industry. None of what you've said specifically refutes the original claim. I know you don't have any grounds to speak with any authority on the matter, and you know it too if you're honest with yourself.
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      > "I'm not trying to start a debate here." Interesting. > "It's obvious from your posts that you don't have any particular knowledge of AMD's console dealings, or even console dealings in general." I never claimed to. > "You only speak to generalities which are well known among even casual observers of the industry. None of what you've said specifically refutes the original claim." It's precisely because these market generalities do not match with what was proposed that I called it into question. Developing new silicon is a risky endeavour. Even going from one process node to a smaller process node without changing the design architecturally is fraught with problems, resulting in lower yield until the manufacturing kinks are worked out. Why would a chip manufacturer agree to a deal where they're expected to take on increased risk for a lower reward? It makes no business sense. That's what I was calling into question. > "I know you don't have any grounds to speak with any authority on the matter, and you know it too if you're honest with yourself" I may not personally know the same people vvanders knows, but I can put myself in the shoes of a businessman running a chip manufacturer. I enjoyed debating with vvanders, and aside from leaving out the dig at the people they know in the industry, I'd do it again.

vvanders 9y ago

Eh, I've been in the consumer electronics space a while and it's pretty common for a SoC/CPU vendor to offer a time-based tiered price as a part of a procurement contract. As your chip goes from cutting edge process technology($$$) to mid-tier($$) and commodity($) they usually pass that savings along, otherwise they would incentivize going for a mid-cycle refresh and suddenly a large revenue stream for your chip dries up as a product moves to a (potentially) different vendor.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "as a product moves to a (potentially) different vendor." The only other manufacturer of x64 CPUs in Intel, and the only other manufacturer of (competitive) GPUs is Nvidia. Why would Microsoft or Sony incur the high NRE cost to switch to two different suppliers mid-cycle just so they can shave a small amount off their unit cost? That's not to say AMD wouldn't pass on some of the savings to Microsoft and Sony, I'm sure they would, but it's not likely to be a one-sided deal.
- vvanders 9y ago
  The same reason you fight tooth and nail for pennies on the BoM, because at scale every cent matters. There's also the inverse where if the jump to the next chip is small(see XB One/S/X) you may migrate early and EoL a product before planned leaving a chip production line with no product. You also always have multiple vendors bidding so if one of them offers a sliding scale you're going to use that as leverage against the other vendors.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "The same reason you fight tooth and nail for pennies on the BoM, because at scale every cent matters." It doesn't matter if the potential savings are sunk by the NRE costs of shifting to new vendors before the projected end of the product. You have to look at cost holistically.
    - vvanders 9y ago
      Well, duh ;). When you're talking 15M+ units being able to drop $1-2 from BOM is a huge motivator for things like this. When you get into the millions of dollars worth of savings you can fund a lot of engineering time. They also may never go through with the switch but use it as leverage for a better deal. Back when I did SoC evals we'd take products right up to the brink of production just to apply pressure. It was almost like a game of chicken between 2-3 vendors to see who blinked first and gave us a better BoM/deal on the core chip. These weren't easy bring-ups but usually were vastly different GPUs + CPU combos. It's very much a thing that happens, at least back when I was involved with stuff like that ~6 years ago.
      - ZenoArrow 9y ago
        I don't doubt it happens with other electronics manufacturing, and negotiating with multiple vendors is a good negotiating tactic, my comments are purely directed at the console business. If you look at the average lifetime of a (successful) console, you're looking at between 5 to 10 years. Within that time, multiple revisions take place, often to replace peripheral components to reduce costs, but in the case of the longest living consoles they will often get a design refresh, including a redesign of the CPU / GPU. I can think of only one example in recent memory where a console switched manufacturers for these core components during its lifetime (that example being the GPU for the Xbox 360, which switched from AMD to IBM). In the case of the Xbox 360, IBM were already manufacturing the CPU, and the redesign combined the CPU and GPU into a single SoC. Aside from that one example, there haven't (to my knowledge) been any other examples of companies switching manufacturers for their core components mid cycle. Contrast this with the PC business, where OEMs will frequently swap between motherboard/CPU/GPU manufacturers, and you'd have to wonder what makes the dynamics in the console market different.

magila 9y ago

Protip: When you accuse people of talking out of their arse, don't then proceed to talk out of your arse.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
Protip: When you disagree with someone, try to offer more than just an ad hominem. If you disagree with something I've said, by all means explain why.
- magila 9y ago
  I'm not trying to start a debate here. It's obvious from your posts that you don't have any particular knowledge of AMD's console dealings, or even console dealings in general. You only speak to generalities which are well known among even casual observers of the industry. None of what you've said specifically refutes the original claim. I know you don't have any grounds to speak with any authority on the matter, and you know it too if you're honest with yourself.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "I'm not trying to start a debate here." Interesting. > "It's obvious from your posts that you don't have any particular knowledge of AMD's console dealings, or even console dealings in general." I never claimed to. > "You only speak to generalities which are well known among even casual observers of the industry. None of what you've said specifically refutes the original claim." It's precisely because these market generalities do not match with what was proposed that I called it into question. Developing new silicon is a risky endeavour. Even going from one process node to a smaller process node without changing the design architecturally is fraught with problems, resulting in lower yield until the manufacturing kinks are worked out. Why would a chip manufacturer agree to a deal where they're expected to take on increased risk for a lower reward? It makes no business sense. That's what I was calling into question. > "I know you don't have any grounds to speak with any authority on the matter, and you know it too if you're honest with yourself" I may not personally know the same people vvanders knows, but I can put myself in the shoes of a businessman running a chip manufacturer. I enjoyed debating with vvanders, and aside from leaving out the dig at the people they know in the industry, I'd do it again.