Yeah, but 90% of gaming PCs use Windows. And it's a custom version of Linux so it's very different from a regular PC OS. Granted it's still a PC OS, but that's like saying Mac OS is a PC OS, without explaining to anybody that Mac OS has a terrible library compared to Windows. The difference between Mac OS and Windows is big enough that most consumers don't consider a Mac a PC. Same goes for consoles. Most consumers don't consider a console a PC.

I have 3 different TF numbers for PS5 and had that for months, I have posted them here before and haven't changed:

Gonzalo + Flute 10,1TF+ (44CU's, 1,8ghz+)

Oberon 10,2TF (40CU's, 2ghz)

Oberon + Jason Schreier 11,2TF (44CU's, 2ghz)

Oberon 10,2TF looks dead, but I dont wanna give up on it just yet but Jason Schreier said quite clearly it's dead. There's nothing out there pointing to something else so it looks like Anaconda 12TF > PS5

What is the performance difference between 10 and 12TF?

In terms of TF numbers it's half the difference (20%) that the XBO/PS4 had.

XBO - 1.31TF
PS4 - 1.84TF (40% Higher)

PS5 (rumour) - 10TF
Anaconda (Rumour) - 12TF (20% Higher)

So NextBox loads game in 8secs vs PS5s 10secs? (so dumbed down)

Like having a 2070 Super vs 2080 Ti. Or 100 FPS 1440p on Witcher 3 at high, but not max settings, and 135 FPS 1440p on Witcher 3 at high, but not max settings. If we are talking about max settings on Witcher 3, then that would be something like 80 FPS 1440p for 10 TF, and 100 FPS 1440p for 12 TF.

Source: Logicailincrements.com

Use their chart, and mouse over the GPU section to see FPS rates on Witcher 3.

Another Source for the TFlops of the GPUs: https://www.engadget.com/2018/09/14/nvidia-rtx-mesh-shaders-dlss-tensor-cores/

But ultimately not a major performance difference? I'm tryna see what the fuss about. I have a feeling this thread is about techs hoes flexing about something that is ultimately minor.

This is GPU performance so load times wouldn't be affected. The main difference between XBO/PS4 was resolution (900p vs 1080p, 1080p is roughly 40% more pixels than 900p). So if the difference was 20% this gen it might have been more like 980p vs 1080p.

It's a huge improvement over the base model PS4, and XB1.

But yeah, it's not that big of a difference. One console could launch at $400 and 10 TF, while another one launches at $500 and 12 TF. When factoring in price to performance both machines would be on equal footing in the graphics race. It would just be a repeat of PS4 Pro vs XB1X.

The difference is high enough that one particular company will shout it from every rooftop that "We have the fastest console on earth", to everyone that mostly isn't interested at all.

In reality, it's games that count, and nothing else. We will have umpteen DigitalFoundry analyses that this game looks better on "We have the fastest console on earth" because pixels 128 to 133 in scanline 326 are sharper than on the competitor. For the rest of the world, the difference is precisely irrelevant. If anything has told us the past years, t's games that count.