PlayStation 3 Manufacturing Costs Down 70%

[anonymousdude]

[citation][nom]pender21[/nom]Not happening, Blu Ray Discs are still more expensive to produce and stamp than DVDs.[/citation]

Then explain to me why 360 games cost the same $60.

[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]Man, I don't know where half of the users who comment get their information but Jesus H Christ... Sony is NOT going to drop the prices on the CONSOLE anytime soon. They were LOSING money when they first started selling the damn thing in the first place! This whole entire time they have been losing money and now that some information has been made public about the cost to manufacture, everyone is up in arms. The unit has, say it with me, "PROPRIETARY HARDWARE" in it. THAT is what COSTS so much to produce. The damn thing is one of a kind. Sony, do what you gotta do. )[/citation]

Dropping the price would sell more consoles increasing its user base which leads to more money for developers who would in turn make properly coded games for the PS3.

 

[eklipz330]

there will be a slim, and there will be a price cut before the year ends. the bundles that are out right now will be obsolete next year, but we'll have a $300 ps3 on the market

 

[hakesterman]

You would have an extremely hard time building a PC that out performes a PS3. The graghic card you would need alone would set
you back around $350.00 to 425.00. You would still need a hard drive
and Memory, case and DVD Rom and a keyboard and mouse and speakers and so on. Plus you would have to deal with Viruses on your PC and haveing to set up each game after you install, plus deal with memory
crashes and malware. The Ps3 far surpases any game play you have on a PC. I have yet to see a PC game that even comes close to looking as good as a PS3 game, not to mention how much smoother they operate on a PS3. When i think about gameing machines i think PS3 first, Xbox360 second, PC third, and Wii last. I seriously doubt PC gameing
will ever beat console playing, Consoles are designed to be better than the current PC's, they have faster Ram and more Ram. The games are written for that exact machine, unlike Pc's where a game is written to try to perform on 120 different configurated PC's.

 

[Guest]

Hankesterman you sire are a complete tool. At least you could get some of your facts straight lol duhhhhhh.

 

[jamez45]

Most games look better on a high pc than on a ps3. It looks so much sharper with much better textures.
Huh? a ps3 has like 512mb of ram... i don't see many pc's with that nowadays...
Yeah consoles are better optimized for their less powerful hardware but pc's are just much more powerful now and still produce a better image. A ps3 is powerful, but the graphics card in that does not beat a 4870x2 or a gtx295 or the new line of direct x 11 cards soon to be coming out.
And the cell only had one main core, while intel will be bring out a fully fledged 8 core with 16 threads processor soon on a 32nm process. The cell isn't going to beat that...

 

[Thorfkin]

Where did you get that load of shi, , misinformation hakesterman? First off the RSX graphics processor in in the PS3 is roughly equivalent to a direct X 10 graphics card in a PC as far as what effects it can render. Most games on the PS3 render at somewhere between 600 and 720 vertical and then get upscaled to fit the system's 720 or 1080 resolution. Very few of the PS3's games are actually rendered at 1920x1080 if any at all. I have a Radeon 4850 in my PC that currently runs for $129 on Newegg and I play Crysis on it at 1680x1050 resolution at maximum detail and the 4850 is considered the low end of the gaming range of cards. The PS3 can't come anywhere close to that. The PS3 has 256 megs or system memory and 256 megs or gddr3 video memory. My PC has 4 gigs of system memory currently available for about $50 and my video card has 512 megs of gddr4 video ram. Consoles are NOT designed to be better than the current generation of PC hardware and never have been. Consoles are designed to be cheap and easy to use for people who can't afford or aren't interested in PC gaming. The PC I had 4 years ago still makes the PS3 look like a joke. Don't get me wrong, I love my PS3. I never get enough of spending an afternoon with my friends kicking back and playing Wipeout HD or Street Figher 4. But the simple fact of the matter is the $400 PS3 is about equivalent to a cheap ass $400 PC with a mid range graphics card.

 

[n8dogg]

Good god hakesterman, the gpu in the ps3 is equivilent to a 7900gt, one of which you can buy for $70. You should lay off the retard sandwiches

 

[jamez45]

The xbox also has more general processing power than a ps3 because it has a tri core processor unlike.

Considering the frame rate issues PS3 gamers have suffered through over the years, it should come as no surprise that id Software's RAGE is the latest title that is currently running faster on Xbox 360. In a 10-page cover story with Edge magazine, John Carmack reveals that RAGE is currently running at 60 fps on PC and Xbox 360, while the PS3 port is running around 20-30 frames per second. From CVG:
"The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," John Carmack told Edge. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that.

"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3," he said.

The RSX GPU inside the Xbox 360 is most often compared to NVIDIA's GeForce 7800 GTX, albeit with a narrower 128-bit memory interface. In comparison, the Xenos GPU inside the Xbox 360 is more comparable to a Radeon X1900 GPU, although Xenos isn't really an X1900 derivative due to Xenos' unified shader architecture, 128-bit memory interface to graphics memory, and 10MB of embedded memory (among other things).

 

[jamez45]

[citation][nom]jamez45[/nom]The xbox also has more general processing power than a ps3 because it has a tri core processor unlike.Considering the frame rate issues PS3 gamers have suffered through over the years, it should come as no surprise that id Software's RAGE is the latest title that is currently running faster on Xbox 360. In a 10-page cover story with Edge magazine, John Carmack reveals that RAGE is currently running at 60 fps on PC and Xbox 360, while the PS3 port is running around 20-30 frames per second. From CVG:"The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," John Carmack told Edge. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that."The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3," he said.The RSX GPU inside the Xbox 360 is most often compared to NVIDIA's GeForce 7800 GTX, albeit with a narrower 128-bit memory interface. In comparison, the Xenos GPU inside the Xbox 360 is more comparable to a Radeon X1900 GPU, although Xenos isn't really an X1900 derivative due to Xenos' unified shader architecture, 128-bit memory interface to graphics memory, and 10MB of embedded memory (among other things).[/citation]

But an xbox is also far behind a pc though.

 

[totaldarknessincar]

Hey Thorfkin, you have to compare a PC from 2006 to the PS3, after all, it is 4 years old. That means, you need to go back to 2006, find a blu-ray player that cost already close to what the PS3 cost, get your 7800 or 7900 Geforce, get 1 gig or 2 gig ram since comparing 512 vs 512 doesn't work since Windows and other Background program steals some of the ram plus a console is already more specific to gaming vs. the generalities of a PC. Don't forget to find something that can decode Dolby Tru HD or Master Audio, if you had a receiver from back then that could do that fine, but it sure was a pretty penny. Then find a way to get HDMI audio and video. I know soundcards didn't do that, and I don't think there was a video card that could do that at that time. There wasn't a CPU as powerful as the Cell for standard PCs at that time, but you can get the most powerful intel or AMD out there and thow that in. Get the motherboard, get the case and when all is said and done, you were looking at a PC closer to 2000 than the 600 it cost.

Remember, consoles, at least the latest ones, were designed be more powerful than a PC, with that lead lasting 1 year tops, but closer to 6 month, but the value you get with everything included could last many more years before you can get that same value from a Gaming PC.

 

[michaelahess]

Bought both of mine brand new for $250, just gotta know where to look, and when....so this news is pointless to me.

 

[ubernoobie]

cmon sony get moar money so i can buy it and you guys can lower price to start the play station 4! 😀

 

[Stardude82]

totaldarknessincar,

I don't think 2006 matters now. PS3 is an OK gaming platform But a few other things you seem to be forgetting:

1. The original XBox is nothing but a mid-range PC circa 2001 and was great considering it only had to render at 480i.

2. The memory on the 50/50 split 512Mb total memory on the PS3 was always a point of controversy. Pretty much everybody 3 years ago was running at least 1GB of system memory in addition to video, that severely limited the box back then. The 360 has flexible shared memory which helps.

3. The Cell is SO powerful, but not in a straight line and most PC games are graphics limited and there is nothing special about the pretentiously named "Reality Synthesizer" which is nothing more than a GeForce 7800 derivative which is now SO dated. Sony wants developers to off-load processing from the GPU to the CPU, but that flies in the face of developing for all the other systems and is hard, especially given memory limitations.

4. Arguable, PC gaming is a tremendous value if you just hold off on the fancy hardware and play a little older titles. Games get cheaper and performance gets better (due to driver/software maturation).

5. The PS3 OS steals a whole core and some of the system memory (52mb system, 32mb graphics. XP takes up about 100mb system by comparison, which I don't think is bad)

6. The PS3 is a great multi-media machine, but all the reviews I've seen says it loses out to the 360 in gaming. I also think most of the current generation of games are dull and derivative and that the fancy graphics don't translate into good games. Oh, that and it is an energy hog which you wouldn't want to leave on all the time.

 

[JonathanDeane]

Im thinking there will be a 299$ PS3 for Christmas but how much this improves sales I have no prediction...

I got my PS3 mostly to play movies and its fantastic I enjoy it daily and its fantastic for the occasional game too

 

[Raidur]

I also call BS on Sony. I've been callig BS since the $800 price tag that Sony 'says' they were paying back in the day. No company in their right mind would lose that much money, especially a company like Sony... BULL SH*T

Anyways, gratz to all if they decide to price cut. But this could be part of the scam so 'they don't have to yet'. So they can 'make their money back'.

 

[gomi]

I think they had to make the games expensive to justify selling the playstation at a loss. Even despite the lowered manufacturing costs now I think they will keep game prices the same to recover lost revenue.

 

[llemm]

Please please please please. Im gonna go to church and pray this happens.

 

[blppt]

Anybody who doesnt think a good gaming PC absolutely dominates current consoles should compare the blurry, draw-in mess of GTA4 on x360 and ps3 against the poorly coded, but still FAR better looking PC version. Or the smooth as glass AND far better looking MLB2K9 on PC. Hell, at 1920x1080 (true, not upsampled like PS3/x360) it looks far better than MLB The Show on PS3 IMHO.

 

[mlopinto2k1]

Хboх 360 System Performance - Draft
Custom IBM PowerPC-based CPU •3 symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each
•2 hardware threads per core; 6 hardware threads total
•1 VMX-128 vector unit per core; 3 total
•128 VMX-128 registers per hardware thread
•1 MB L2 cache


CPU Game Math Performance •9 billion dot product operations per second

Custom ATI Graphics Processor •500 MHz
•10 MB embedded DRAM
•48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines
•Unified shader architecture

Polygon Performance •500 million triangles per second

Pixel Fill Rate •16 gigasamples per second fillrate using 4X MSAA

Shader Performance •48 billion shader operations per second

Memory •512 MB GDDR3 RAM
•700 MHz DDR
•Unified memory architecture

Memory Bandwidth •22.4 GB/s memory interface bus bandwidth
•256 GB/s memory bandwidth to EDRAM
•21.6 GB/s front-side bus

Overall System Floating-Point Performance •1 TFLOP



PLAYSTATION 3

CPU: Cell Processor

•PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
•1 VMX vector unit per core
•512KB L2 cache
•7 x SPE @3.2GHz
•7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
•7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
•* 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS
GPU: RSX @550MHz

•1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
•Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
•Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines
Sound: Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-base processing)

Memory:

•256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
•256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz
System Bandwidth:

•Main RAM: 25.6GB/s
•VRAM: 22.4GB/s
•RSX: 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
•SB: 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)
System Floating Point Performance: 2 TFLOPS


Enough with the assuming...

 

[r0x0r]

New Katamari Damacy game coming out on PS3; all arguments are now invalid