Scorpio is obviously capable enough for 4k 60fps,  just as Xbox One Is capable of 900p 60fps. We dont see it very often but it's achievable. 4k, 30fps shouldnt be a rarity if Devs priorities resolution over graphical enhancements 

There will obviously be a notable resolution jump and potential for better performance than any competing console, so I dont really care about native 4k. If you get given something above 1080p then you're making good use of your 4k tv. I don't see the value of Scorpio being judged by how frequently it natively hits 4k on the dot. I mean Ms could make a 8Tf system and still nothing is certain for as long as developers have freedom.

Of course Scorpio will do 4K, same as Neo. They will upscale the living crap out of the games and nobody will notice it until DF starts counting pixels.

Its enough for 4k30 with modern graphics. Stop with the FUD

This was just a play from MS to try and get the "we'll have a console that has the best power and resolution"...after their XB 720 trashing... and now they are saying you wont see any improvements on 1080p, they really have got their messaging all wrong so far, its like a re-run of this gen.

Of course some people are rushing to support a console that does not yet exist and is 18months out, again its like the hidden sauce and cloud things again. Phil knows some people are easily led and has tried to use that to his advantage, but once they announce when, what it looks like, what new games will be coming for it (and lets be honest their games output is getting increasingly poorer as this gen goes on)... and more importantly price, we'll get an idea what this currently imaginary "Best looking pixels yet" will be like and if its worth investing in.

Great point.
In the really crude comparison of TFlops, you have the idea of "XBone level FX applied to 4x+ pixel count i.e. 4K".
But if you just don't need AA, or only lightest AA, then the FX budget is lowered proportionately...
And/or can be plowed back into other display FX e.g. lighting, what have you.
And if upscaling is still used, just from 3.5K->4K for instance, pixel:TFlop ratio lowers further, while still more detailed than 1080p.

But it's getting silly discussing this further, when neither Sony nor MS have solid specs, nor release dates.  
I mean, what about NX too?
 Nobody's mentioned how their new controller alone will be handling 4K along with the regular 1080p TV.

Why do people take 4k gaming literally? It's obviously just PR talk. But games running at a native 1440p resolution + being upscaled to 4k with additional effects (or better framerate) will make a big difference.

Xbox One: 900p @ 30fps
Scorpio: 1440p @ 60fps with additional effects

"Real" 4k gaming would be grossly overshooting the market. The PS3 and 360 suffered badly at first from low HDTV adoption rates and 4k adoption will be even lower when Scorpio and Neo release. Putting all or most of the extra power into a resolution bump would be a waste of resources as there would be hardly any customers to take advantage of it - a classic example of overshooting the market. If Sony and Microsoft have learned from the early PS3/360 days they won't make the same mistake again.

Totally agree, stop the talk of 4K gaming and just say that games will look worlds apart.  The only problem is with multiplayer games.  All versions of the game need to be played at the same framerate.

Like you said, going from a 900p@30/60fps on the Xbox One to 1440p@30/60fps on the Scorpio will show a huge difference in visual fidelity and allow for a big difference in graphics as well, jumping from medium @ 900p on Xbox One to High/Ultra @1440p on Scorpio.

If MS push for 4K more than anything, then it will cause problems and we won't see such a big graphical leap.

Sony are just stating that 1080p is the minimum for the NEO.  That is the right way to go.

To be fair... The Xbox 360 wasn't running a monolithic Operating System that would consume 1-2Gb+ of Ram to itself. It wasn't loaded with a bunch of services that also takes up CPU time, it wasn't running Steam+Rockstar Club+Other DRM schemes in the background.
Not to mention that the PC version generally looked better.
And the Console version was running with a very lean low-level API to eek out as much performance as possible.

It is difficult to do an Apples to Apples comparison... With that said, GTA 4 can run on a PC with lower hardware than GTA 5 and look better at the same time thanks to various mods and tweaks.

GTA though has always been a resource hog on PC, in-fact that tends to be a "thing" with Rockstars games since forever, GTA 3, Vice City also required stupidly fast machines back in the day.

Best way to compare GTA 5 though is with all the next-gen versions as the machines it runs on are very similar to a PC environment.

Welcome to reality... but people that want to brag while reality don't catch them will pretend it's true.

I know, this was my point, that it is very hard or pointless to compare on paper the specs of a console and the specs of a PC and say exactly how they will or wont run a game from that.

Even the way the X360 installs one half of GTAV and the other code runs from the play disk in the drive... I mean they were getting every single bit of bandwidth possible on that systems hardware, optimized to the max, you just can't do that in a PC world where every single system is going to be different.