The issue is that there is a lot of generalization going around and people don't really take what these machines actually do need into consideration. Lets paint a cerian picture.

Ihave edited my originalpost to give a more accurate depiction of what really happens.

PS4 running game at 1080p@30fps. 33ms render time with its 1.8TF. Going by steps.

1. CPU pre-renders the frame and has 33ms to do this. Then passes the results to the GPU.
2. The GPU then uses those results and completes the frame. It to has to do this in under 33ms. While the GPU is working the CPU is pre-rendering the nxt frame.
3. Rinse and repeat.

Now not everything scales with resolution. But for certain is that if you double the rez, and this gets a little tricky. Say you want to g from 2Mpx (1080P) to 4M px.

• CPU workload increases by ~20%. GPU workload increases by 100%. You are trying to render exactly twice the pixels.
• Now you need a slightly faster CPU and at least 3.6TF GPU. Or ain't so much faster CPU and maybe like a 4TF GPU. So while the CPU is taking more time do its work, the more powerful GPU is doing its own in less time.

Now you want to bump up to 8M px(native 4k). You need another 30% bump to your CPU and another 100% bump to your GPU bringing your GPU TF to around 7.2TF.

But he CPU and GPU in the PS5/XSX is significantly more powerful (or efficient) that whats in the PS4. The CPU is like at least 400% better, and the GPU TF is at least 65$ better.

So the PS5/XSX would need around 3TF to render that same game at native 4K@30fps and around 6TF to do it at 60fps.

Do you really doubt that? .

It all depends on how it works.  If I can load up an external HDD with game, leave the internal storage empty, have games automatically transfer to the uber fast SSD drive while I play, this would be great.  But if I constantly have to install/delete this is a problem and makes me consider PC.  Especially since I have kids who will want a certain number of games installed pretty much at all times.  Storage could be a major issue with consoles.  Not sure I like what I am seeing.  I would be curious how well games run from an external standard HDD.  

I really don't see what the issue is; I expect these consoles to be able to have at least 8 games installed to their internal drives. Not every games a 100GB+ game. 

But more so, even if given the option to buy some sort of compatible SSD expansion drive... I wouldn't. I find that to be a waste of money. Why should I spend $100+ on some sort of compatible 1TB drive (be it XSX proprietary drive or a 7GB/s NVMe off the shelf drive), when I can buy this 2TB drive for $65 or this 4TB drive for $94 

I mean yes, I would've to be doing some house management, but copying to ad from an external drive is a lot faster than redownloading data or reinstalling from the bluray drive.

I would probably only need to moe things to the external drive like 2- 3 ties a year anyways. And I am likely to go for the 4TB drive because that at least allows me to have a good amount of selected PS4 titles from my current library on there and it least with that games I can play them off the external drive.

The issue is that there is a lot of generalization going around and people don't really take what these machines actually do need into consideration. Lets paint a cerian picture.

Ihave edited my originalpost to give a more accurate depiction of what really happens.

PS4 running game at 1080p@30fps. 33ms render time with its 1.8TF. Going by steps.

1. CPU pre-renders the frame and has 33ms to do this. Then passes the results to the GPU.
2. The GPU then uses those results and completes the frame. It to has to do this in under 33ms. While the GPU is working the CPU is pre-rendering the nxt frame.
3. Rinse and repeat.

Now not everything scales with resolution. But for certain is that if you double the rez, and this gets a little tricky. Say you want to g from 2Mpx (1080P) to 4M px.

• CPU workload increases by ~20%. GPU workload increases by 100%. You are trying to render exactly twice the pixels.
• Now you need a slightly faster CPU and at least 3.6TF GPU. Or ain't so much faster CPU and maybe like a 4TF GPU. So while the CPU is taking more time do its work, the more powerful GPU is doing its own in less time.

Now you want to bump up to 8M px(native 4k). You need another 30% bump to your CPU and another 100% bump to your GPU bringing your GPU TF to around 7.2TF.

But he CPU and GPU in the PS5/XSX is significantly more powerful (or efficient) that whats in the PS4. The CPU is like at least 400% better, and the GPU TF is at least 65$ better.

So the PS5/XSX would need around 3TF to render that same game at native 4K@30fps and around 6TF to do it at 60fps.

It all depends on how it works.  If I can load up an external HDD with game, leave the internal storage empty, have games automatically transfer to the uber fast SSD drive while I play, this would be great.  But if I constantly have to install/delete this is a problem and makes me consider PC.  Especially since I have kids who will want a certain number of games installed pretty much at all times.  Storage could be a major issue with consoles.  Not sure I like what I am seeing.  I would be curious how well games run from an external standard HDD.  

It is fun to discuss this topic, but it should be a conversation around understanding the hardware, and learning how the features will work to achieve new game design, and new ways to interact with game worlds.

When it comes right down to it, we are going to see more equal performance between PS5 and XBSX than we did between PS4/XBO or PS4P and XBO X. A large number of multiplats will run identical on both systems. Some will take better advantage of PS5, some will take better advantage of XBSX. The exclusives will deliver what each console can achieve at its peak performance. 

Because those drives are insufficient from a performance perspective to load next-gen games from.

Microsoft has taken a performance-guaranteed approach with it's propriety "memory cards". - But that will be more costly.

Sony however is not as propriety, but there isn't enough details to showcase how flexible it truly is or what it's costs are.

I actually like having all my games installed and updated... I have 20~ Terabytes worth of storage on the Xbox One X, 4 Terabytes on the Xbox 360... 50 Terabytes on my PC.

Shit could get expensive for me next gen if I spent $100 per Terabyte...

I doubt that 10-12 number holds any truth.

1. I am not saying that you get an HDD to run the games of from, I am saying you get a HDD as a backup drive. Copy games that you are done playing onto it fr whenever you may want to play them again so you can then move them back into your system drive. Which would be faster than redownloading or reinstalling from disk. Basically your game on the external HDD would work as if you have a disc copy of the game. 
2. I don't know about MS "proprietary" SSD,I was under the impression that its just a 2230 M.2 SSD. In an enclosure. Thy use it for some of their devices and its a form factor that's found in some laptops too. I could be mistaken though.
3. That's a lot of storage space you are packing. Well for me, knowing how I play games; I start a game, usually don't move way from it till I platinum it or I'm done with it and that's it. Never go back to play it again. Then I have a couple of resident games in my system. Usually Tekken and GT ( my idea of pciku and play games. 
   
   So for someone like me, just getting an external drive that I can use as a backup drive would be great for me.