Not much of a difference between 1080P and 1440P? I beg to differ.
I run 1440P on my PC and have done so for years.

1440P = 2560x1440 = 3,686,400 pixels.
1080P = 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels.

That is almost a 78% increase in the number of pixels. Not much of a difference? Have you gamed on a 1440P panel before?

Also. Using "flops" as some kind of measurement for possible 4k gaming is silly.
Also, you can't ignore the possibility of 1800P either which the Xbox One Scorpio should be capable of.

1800P = 3200x1800 = 5,760,000 pixels or a 177% increase from 1080P and a 56% increase from 1440P.

As for price... I simply don't care about it, if I am happy dropping a few grand on a PC... I am happy paying a few hundred extra for a console if it has tangible benefits.

Can you show me a multiplat PS4 game that looks twice as good as the PC version running on a Radeon 7850?
Direct X 12 and Vulkan kinda' erodes into that "Console optimization". -  You should see how things stack up in a modern game. ;)

Wrong.




When it comes to rendering the game, you can see substantual improvements with higher resolutions and then even downscaling them... In-fact that's how some of the best Anti-Aliasing methods actually work. ;)

Increased resolution allows for less aliasing of textures and geometry and other assets, it allows for smaller details to be more visible.
I'm sorry if you have only ever experience 1080P and below gaming, there is a real appreciation with higher resolution displays and gaming that shouldn't be understated.

I meant Titan X cannot do 60fps on current games at 4K that means it will take probably another 4-5yrs more for it to happen on consoles.

Upscaling on TV looks bad but  what will be the impact on IQ from say 1440P downsampled to 1080P I am not sure. Personally I prefer native resolution and improved aa, texture filtering rather than downsampled resolution if I have the option. Also you cannot compare tiny monitor screen resolution to 40+HDTV. In monitor it always look sharper than on HDTV.

I also disagree regarding price as I think it is important factor. The reason PS4 is dominating is not because it has 40% more power. It is priced almost as much as Xbone. If PS4 was 100$ then may be it would not sell this well. Xbone with kinect at 500$ was always going to be a disaster lol

I dont mean thate the games looks twice as good as on pc with the same hardware, perhaps my englisch is tood bad^^

I only mean taht you get mor out of the hardware than on a pc, we saw it in the last 3 years of the last gen when you compare it to a pc version and look at the hardware we saw that they optimized it really good for the old hardware.

Towards the last gen every game looked better on PC, had more dynamic details, higher resolutions, higher framerates, better anti-aliasing, better filtering, better shadowing, tessellation, higher quality textures, better lighting, better particle effects, list goes on, that isn't all free you know?
I would know. I own a high-end PC and every Xbox console from launch so I had something to compare it to in real time.

When the Xbox One and Playstation 4 launched, games finally caught up with the PC, otherwise... Especially towards the end of last gen, there was a generational graphics difference between PC and console.

Go ahead and compare any Frostbite powered game from last gen to the PC.

Last generation consoles were not using a ton of dynamic details and opted for cheaper pre-calculated, baked details.
For instance in many games even things like Shadows were actually part of the texture work, the games weren't pushing amazing levels of fidelity... They were making do with better artistic assets, why? Because the hardware was horribly antiquated.

have you tried to play CoD BO2 on a 400euro pc hardware from 2005? It dont works and it dont works with best pc hardware you could buy at this time so they get more out of it as it is normal for a pc. Also you can see that every year, CoD (for example) looks better year after year on XOne Ghost < Cod AW < BO3 and its the same hardware all the time. So its different if make a game for pc or consoles, because on consoles you can optimize your game for 1 Hardware.

that dont mea that consoles are 2x fatser then pc pendants but you can get more out of it as on a normal windows pc

Have you tried to play Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare? Your 400euro Console from 2005 can't do it as it's never going to be released on it. Like ever.

Hows about 4k? 5k? Or 7680x1600? Or hows about even 11,520x2160? Still not enough? What about 11,520x4320?
Can you have the same levels of shadowing, lighting, geometry, framerate (120fps/144fps), resolution, texture filtering and more?

If you bought a Core 2 Quad PC released in 2006 with 8Gb DDR2/DDR3 Ram, all you would need is the occasional GPU upgrade which is a cost that is offset by the free online and cheaper games.
Then that Core 2 Quad PC that is 10 years old will still be capable of playing the next CoD game, next year. Can your console do that? No? Why is that? Because it's been left behind in the past unable to play the latest games due to it's technical inadequacy.

How do I know this? Because I also own a Core 2 Quad PC and I am well versed on it's capabilities having extensively tested it with games out of sheer curiosity. - That is in conjunction with my other rigs.

Funny how you can't win the power argument, so you shift the goal post to focus on price though. - The transition into the new generation of consoles has proven how well a PC can keep on going through this console generation transition whilst your old console falls into obscurity.

Have you tried to play Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare? Your 400euro Console from 2005 can't do it as it's never going to be released on it. Like ever.

Hows about 4k? 5k? Or 7680x1600? Or hows about even 11,520x2160? Still not enough? What about 11,520x4320?
Can you have the same levels of shadowing, lighting, geometry, framerate (120fps/144fps), resolution, texture filtering and more?

If you bought a Core 2 Quad PC released in 2006 with 8Gb DDR2/DDR3 Ram, all you would need is the occasional GPU upgrade which is a cost that is offset by the free online and cheaper games.
Then that Core 2 Quad PC that is 10 years old will still be capable of playing the next CoD game, next year. Can your console do that? No? Why is that? Because it's been left behind in the past unable to play the latest games due to it's technical inadequacy.

How do I know this? Because I also own a Core 2 Quad PC and I am well versed on it's capabilities having extensively tested it with games out of sheer curiosity. - That is in conjunction with my other rigs.

Funny how you can't win the power argument, so you shift the goal post to focus on price though. - The transition into the new generation of consoles has proven how well a PC can keep on going through this console generation transition whilst your old console falls into obscurity.

then try BO2 please on an athlon @2 x 2,8 ghz and a 100 euro graphiccard from 2005 (ati radeon 9600 256m memory) with 2 gb ddr2 ram. This it is what you got in 2005 for 400-500 euro. The Xbox 360 was stronger than that ok but you could play games for 10 years in 720 p and Cod BO2 and Ghosts with 60 fps. This is not because the hardware was so ultra strong, you could play it because of optimsation.

It is nice that you can play everthing with the same processor for 10 years and only change the graphiccard  all 3-4 years. but then you payed 1500 -2000 euro and not 400.

And a game like Total war Rome 2 or Total War Attlia dont run smooth on an core 2 quad so you have to change it after 5 years.

please ask some people who are producing videogames and they will tell you that you get more out of a console than a pc with same hardware, for the same graphics on console and pc you need a better pc than the console hardware is.

So you (don't) answer by asking another question and bringing points that are off topic from what he said.

No. Because other than a Phenom 2 x6 I have no AMD systems on hand and it's only a dual-core.

But try running Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare on your 2005 console, oh wait, you can't. You never will, but a Quad Core PC on the other hand from 2006 will.
Hows about Battlefield 1? Nope. Not that either.
Halo Wars 2? Nope. You can't.
Mass Effect: Andromeda? Not that either.
Frostbite is extremely well optimized on PC, even 10 year old CPU's handle it just fine, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield: Hardline, Dragon Age: Inquisiton, Mirrors Edge have shown to scale extremely well and look almost a generation ahead on a 10+ year old CPU relative to the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3.

I could probably elaborate on that "Optimization" bizzo you proclaim but I would assume you would ignore it anyway. - Let's just say, that PC hardware also get's optimizations over it's life span.

Er. Did you forget the PC has free online? Cheaper Accessories? Cheaper games? All said and told, if you have a large games library you save money on the PC over the long term compared to console, go do the math.
I also don't need multiple PC's to play multiple generations of games, I can still run every single game, even one's released 30 years ago, today.

Total War Rome 2 runs fine on my Core 2 Quad.
In-fact, my Core 2 Quad out-benches most stock AMD systems except for the faster 8-core chips.

My 5 year old Core i7 3930K can run Total War Rome 2 multiple times at once without breaking a sweat, it also out-benches the modern 6-core chips (Broadwell-E) though.

Since the Core 2 Quad era, there has been less of a need to upgrade your hardware as often, that occured again with Sandy Bridge.
It's not unusual for people to hang onto a PC for half a decade or more because it can simply handle everything just fine.

It's called taking his question, placing it in an example, whilst asking another question in succession.
I have laid it out fine for you to make the connection from point A to point B.