Can we, once and for all, forget this bullshit?

It is neither Sony nor Microsoft that sells consoles to end users. It's shops. And there were/still are shops all over the world that sold/sell those. Regardless of whether Sony or Microsoft have an office in a particular country. Given that PS4s were actually sold out in the initial weeks in many European markets, there actually were MORE markets the XBox1 was available than the PS4.

If xbox offers something nobody wants, then no matter what a store does, it wont sell, so yes its up to them to make a good product that will sell. Putting garbage on a store will mean nothing. And to your second point the ps4 was sold out.  Wich means people wanted one and could not get one anymore. The xbox 1 was not, meaning there where xbox's but nobody wanted them. How can you not grasp the concept off supply and demand. So where there more ps4 available, more would sell, where there more xbox available the same number would have sold.

More leaks.

Amd wont have anything matching the 2080 untill 2020 for $500. Who knows about the 2080ti.

The 2070 match will be $330. Navi 10 with 56 compute units. will come out third Q of this year. Could this be the one in the ps5? At that price? Its still a whole year before the ps5 actually uses it. And we have to remember that sony will be getting them much cheaper.

So this scales down the rumors. Like permalite said before. Seems like Amd is still ways behind. Nvidea just has to update the rtx line to 7nm and Keep their big advantage in both power and tdp. But seems like AMD will still have a better price for performance.

I for one think we are getting at least 2070 performance on the ps5. After all, $500 ps5 seems to be likely. Who knows about the anaconda. Could be $600 with 2080 performance. But will that matter? I dont think nnext gen us casual gamers wont be able to tell. We already go by what Digital Foundry tells us.

Of course I am... The sales are going to be massive at launch of both for both of these machines. PS5... Simply because it's PlayStation and xbox for the reasons I mentioned above. It'll be a significant chunk of the consoles sold in the first 2 years.... And set the tone of how well they're likely to sell against one another.

Of course ps4 outsold the xbox one... I just stated very good reasons as to why in the post you replied too... Any company puts out a product with that many missteps is bound to be outsold no matter the market.

The landscape HAS changed. Look at the Switch. A hybrid console is taking names... Iterating consoles now exist too, it's looking like at least one of them will launch with multiple skus and Ms are making all the right moves to make some ground back next generation. Google is coming with Stadia... There's Psnow and Gamepass... Though, again... I'll agree that the PS5 is going to sell quite a lot more than the neXtbox.

I don't see how you can say that the landscape hasn't changed.

Yea, he keeps saying this, but there is no way it is happening.  It would be absolute suicide for Sony to release a next gen system that is only ~2 Tflops more than the XBO X, while XB2 is 2x the X, and probably only $100 more.  PS5 would just be a punch line at that point.  We have already gotten a confirmation from a reporter at Kotaku that Sony and MS are at least trying to outdo the 10.7 Tflops that Stadia is pulling.  I think worst case scenerio they will be about on par with that, so ~10 Tflops.  The 8.3 seems more like wishful thinking on his part to me.

Exactly.  Not sure why this concept is so hard to comprehend for some.  Sony has much better bargaining power in order to demand lower prices, at least on the onset of the gen.  Yes, if by some miracle the XB2 performs about on par, or better, than the PS5, AMD will adjust prices to reflect this change.  But, at the beginning, Sony is going to have made 115M+ purchases with AMD, making them much more money than MS, which gives them a better bargaining position.  AMD is going to want to make them happy, and will see that Sony is more than likely going to repeat that success next gen.

If the leak is correct, than the Navi 10 sounds right.  I wonder if the real reason Sony skipped E3 was because they will be at AMD's E3 showing where the Navi is revealed.  They may show a few games that are in production, but they aren't far along enough yet to have a floor full of demos.  It also allows AMD to shoulder much of the price of a E3 showing, while Sony is focused on spending money on the development of the PS5.

@thismentiel

It also says that amd is strugling with clock speeds. Maybe they just arent ready to anounce anything big or even show games that might need to be scaled down cuz amd underdelivered.

Well, remember that the previous leaked info on Gonzalo, the chipset that is believed to be going into the PS5, from Jan had the GPU clocked at 1Ghz, while the more recent one from April had the clockspeed at 1.8 Ghz.  Maybe it was a problem earlier on and they are more recently getting it sorted out.

I haven't stated or announced that nVidia does have a perfect record on efficiency... In-fact I even provided examples to the contrary prior. (Aka. Geforce FX)
But right now and for years prior... nVidia has hands down dominated AMD in that single facet, that is far from a good thing for the industry.

At the end of the day though, it doesn't matter.
nVidia is offering something that AMD isn't, nVidia is still faster and more efficient than AMD's equivalent offerings at almost every bracket... (Minus the crappy Geforce 1650, get the Radeon 570 every day, even if it's a bigger power hog.)

Whether Turings hardware will pay off in the long term remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure... Lots of modders are shoring up mods for older games and implementing Ray Tracing, Minecraft, Crysis, you name it. - Even if it is more rudimentary Path Tracing.

It will be interesting if they implement Turing specific features going forward.

You are correct that AMD against Turing is a better fit rather than AMD against Pascal, Pascal's chips were far more efficient and even smaller than the AMD equivalent, nVidia could have theoretically priced AMD out of the market entirely, which wouldn't bode well for anyone, especially the consoles.

And I am not downplaying any of AMD's achievements... But when a company is bolting on features to a 7+ year old GPU architecture and is trying to shovel it as something new and novel and revolutionary... Well. Doesn't really sit well. Especially when AMD has a history of re-badging older GCN as a new series.

Take the RX 520 for example... Using a GPU from 2013. (Oland.)
Grant it's low-end stuff so doesn't matter as much, but it's highly disingenuous of AMD... Plus such a part misses out on technologies that are arguably more important for low-end hardware, like Delta Colour compression to bolster bandwidth.

nVidia isn't immune from such practices either, but they have shied away from such practices in recent times.

I think it's interesting now, especially the technologies Intel is hinting at.
For IGP's though AMD should still hold a sizable advantage, AMD simply reserves more transistors in it's IGP's for GPU duties than Intel is willing.

My Ryzen notebook (Ignoring the shit battery life that plagues all Ryzen notebooks!) has been amazing from a performance and support standpoint.

Ray Tracing is inherently a compute bound scenario. Turing's approach is to try and make such workloads more efficient by including extra hardware to reduce that load via various means.

AMD has pretty much stuck to 64 CU's or below with GCN, I don't expect that to change anytime soon.. And Graphics Core Next has shown not to be an architecture that has been able to keep pace with nVidia, whether it's Maxwell, Pascal or Turing, it's simply full of limitations for gaming orientated workloads.

Allot of the features introduced with Vega generally didn't pan out as one would hope which didn't help things for AMD either.

Will nVidia retain it's advantage? Who knows. I don't like their approach to dedicating hardware to driving Ray Tracing... I would rather nVidia had taken a more unified approach that would have lent itself to rasterized workloads as well. - Whether this ends up being another Geforce FX moment for nVidia and AMD remains to be seen.. But with Navi being a Polaris replacement and not a high-end part... I don't have my hopes up until AMD's next-gen architecture.

I too would prefer a digital foundry comparison... But they aren't exactly pitting Geforce 1060 6GB cards against the Xbox One X, they usually run with high-end PC hardware.

But the Xbox One X isn't doing 4K, ultra settings @60fps.

I am also going to hazard a guess they are using a Geforce 1060 3GB, not the 6GB variant, the 6GB card tends to track a little closer to the RX 580, not almost 20% slower... But they never really elaborated upon any of that... Nor did Digital Trends actually state anything about the Xbox One X?

...Which reinforces my point. That the Xbox One X GPU is comparable to a Geforce 1060... That's not intrinsically a bad thing either, the Geforce 1060 is a fine mid-range card that has shown itself to be capable.

In saying that... The Geforce 1060 is playing around the same level as the Radeon RX 580, which is roughly equivalent to the Xbox One X GPU anyway.

Wolfenstein 2 and by extension most Id Tech powered games love DRAM. Absolutely love it... That's thanks to it's texturing setup.
The Geforce 1060 3GB's performance for example will absolutely tank in that game.

There is a reason why a Radeon RX 470 8GB is beating the Geforce 1060... No one in their right mind would state the RX 470 is the superior part, would they?

You need to check the dates and patch version, later successive patches for Forza 7 dramatically improved things on the PC, it wasn't the best port out of the gate.

No way in hell should you require a Geforce 1080 to have a similar experience to the Xbox One X. It's chalk and cheese, 1080 every day.

A Geforce 1060 6Gb is doing 42.9fps @ 1440P with ultra settings.

You can bet your ass that same part can do 4k, 30fps at medium... Without the killer that is Hairworx.
But the Xbox One X is dropping things to 1800P in taxing areas as well.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/10540/the-geforce-gtx-1060-founders-edition-asus-strix-review/10

In-fact Guru 3D says the Witcher 3 is 27fps @ 4k + Ultra settings, so a 1060 6Gb could potentially drive better visuals than the Xbox One X version if you settle for some high details rather than ultra.

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-gtx-1060-review,23.html

Fortnite will vary from 1152P - 1728P on the Xbox One X with 1440P being the general ballpark, according to Eurogamer... And that is about right where the Geforce 1060 will also sit.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-fortnites-new-patch-really-does-deliver-60fps

And if we look at the techspot benchies, we can see that 4k, 30fps is feasible on the 1060.
https://www.techspot.com/article/1557-fortnite-benchmarks/

Probably not. But I threw it in there... Because cats.

Like I stated prior... Regardless of platform there will always be a game or two which will run better regardless of power. I.E. Final Fantasy 12 running better on Playstation 4 Pro than the Xbox One X. - Essentially the exact same hardware architecture, but the Xbox One X is vastly superior in almost every metric but returns inferior results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9IGpIehFmQ

The 1060 is doing 25fps @4k with Ultra settings.
https://www.techspot.com/article/1600-far-cry-5-benchmarks/page2.html

And just like Digital foundry states, the Xbox One X isn't running Ultra settings, but high settings with a few low settings... But that dropping the visuals from High to low nets only 5~ fps performance, which means that the engine just isn't scaling things appropriately on PC.

But hey. Like what I said above.

Or I am not giving the 1060 6GB enough credit?
I am not saying the Xbox One X is below a 1060. It's that it's roughly in the same ballpark. - That is... Medium quality settings. 1440P-4k, which is what I expect out of a Radeon RX 580/590, which is roughly equivalent to the Xbox One X in terms of GPU capability on the Radeon side.

You were the one who stated that you need a 1070 to get a similar experience to the Xbox One X. :P

I mean, the Radeon RX 590 is a faster GPU than what is in the Xbox One X... It's Polaris pushed to it's clock limits, yet... The Geforce 1070 still craps on it.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13570/the-amd-radeon-rx-590-review/6

Like I said though... I am a Radeon RX 580 owner.
I am also an Xbox One X owner.

I can do side by side comparisons in real time.

The Radeon RX 580 is roughly equivalent to the Geforce 1060 6GB... And by extension... Neither part is doing anything that I don't see my Xbox One X doing, they are all roughly the same level of expected capability overall.

Ps4 pro is 4,2 Teraflops so 8,3 is about 2x, it will probably be slightly above 8,3 it's a rounding number dude.

Keep in mind this is speculation, but yes, PS5 will have 8 Teraflops at the price $400, Xbox lockhart 4TF (disc-less) at $300 and xbox anaconda 12TF at $500. They will all have 1TB NVMe/SSD drive (ultra super-fast storage) and 8core zen2 CPU and will be released in fall 2020. This is 100% certain.

I've been saying something close to this for few months now, only that Brad sams and Jason Schreier (kotaku reporter) comments did throw me off for awhile. But nothing is 100% until it's 100% but after a while speculation becomes fact and all we can do now is w8 for confirmation.