My gaming rig cost me $500, and that was with win 7 pro operating system, very few people who can build a rig pay anywhere near the price you think. 

OK now how much would your "rig" cost if you bought it already put together? Comparing a PC that you pieced together to a Console is dumb imo

I'd like to add something: I think that the difference in visual quality we see right here, between the better looking PC demo and the PS4 one, will be similar to the difference between the PS4 and the Wii U. Will be something noticeable, but not a generational leap.

Maybe $800 with the markup. I personally don't see it as "dumb". I feel that most of the PC gaming community is skilled at building their own systems.

What I find dumb is that anyone needs to compare their prefered system to another system, and just can't simply enjoy gaming. The insecurities in the gaming community on the internet are astounding. " Oooh, my console is stronger than your console!" "your console is kiddy!" "our console has the best online service!" "my console is as strong if not better than a PC!"

Enough already. Consoles are always outdated by 2 years from the point they launch. It's just the way it is, and the way it's always been. It takes time to manufacture a console, where a PC has swappable parts. My 2 yr old vid card is benchmarked on par with the PS4 GPU, and I can get a much better card now for like $150 to upgrade it.

Just be happy gaming.

You couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you should look at this post below

Posted by bbd90 on another thread http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=155605&page=4

Hi guys, this is my first post on these forums and I just wanted to clarify some things.

First, You can't take a cosole's specifications and compare them directly to the PC counterparts. It doesn't work that way. Today's PCs are exponentially faster than PS360 but yet the games don't look a whole lot different. That's because the PC has a lot of OS overhead and API problems they have to deal with. With consoles you have a single unified specification that you can directly code for so the results will look much better than anything we have seen before (probably mid-late cycle). Reports are saying that Sony is encouraging developers to code down to the metal with low level access to the GPU libGCM style, this means games in the future are going to blow away what the PC is producing today. The PC will always more powerful than a console but the console will always make more efficient use of the components.

Second, the 8GB of GDDR5 RAM is a potential game changer. Sony's OS most likely will not take up more than 1GB and that's being really generous because they really went with minimalistic design and tried not to block the developers to harness the power of the system. That leaves 7GB for the games, this will not all be utilized right out of the gate and there is a couple of reasons for that. It's more of a future proofing method because they expect this console to be the focus for the next 7 years but also because as games start to unlock the true power of the consoles it's going to start eating up that RAM rather quickly. If you played The Witcher 2 with Ubersampling or Crysis 3 with the DX 11 patch you can see that once the  high resolution textures are introduced the VRAM starts to become a bottleneck. I think both Sony and Microsoft understand this well enough to equip their systems with ample RAM for the future.

So basically, as PC gamer these things are amazing to see from consoles. Sony (and Microsoft based on rumors) have empraced the PC architecture which will mean better games for everyone. The processing power is nothing groundbreaking but in consoles it's going to really work well and even though we might not see the benefits of having 8GB of GDDR5 right away it was definitely the right call to make. Better to be safe then to be sorry later down the line.

Developers are happy, gamers are happy, now the ball is in Microsoft's court hopefully they will have a console that is equally as exciting.  

I disagree with their findings in a lot of ways. OS and API in Win 7 64 bit using only 15% of the cpu power and 17% of the RAM, directly checked from my settings as we speak, and that's with Firefox open with 6 tabs, plus antivirus/antimalware, Steam, and a handful of other underlying system tray apps running.

My system has 16 GB of ram in it, so even with it using 20% of that ram, it's less than 3 GB used, leaving 13 GB free. RAM is dirt cheap for PCs, throwing more in is easy. I can jump up to 128 GB in this motherboard with 1 click from Newegg.com. The latest update from the DX11 people have opened the bottleneck quite a bit more, for the newer vid cards and games.

DDR5 ram is nice, don't get me wrong, but it's nothing world-changing at the end of the day. RAM is like a storage chest - just because you can find something a little faster doesn't mean you can fit any more inside of it once it's full. Textures, poly processing, particles and lighting all depend on this. Vid cards ship now with 2 GB of VRAM now on average, and some are breaking that barrier as we speak to 4GB. A new version of PCIe is due out late 2013/early 2014, which will expand the bus channels that the data passes through by a significant amount.

So at the end of the day, I couldn't be more RIGHT. But my point still stands, you'd clearly rather be trying to make a case that a PS4 is more powerful than a PC than actually just go play your PS3 and actually enjoy gaming. Me, I'm stuck here for a little bit more, got to finish a film edit. Then I'll go load up LFD2 on Steam.  =)

I was about the say they're not comparable because the lighting is completely different, due to the molten streak visible in the ps4 version... then I saw the textures surrounded the door. The ps4 version barely has a texture, it looks unfinished In my eyes.

Not sure what the point of this thread is, we already knew the PS4 and Nextbox can't match PCs in actual power, anybody wishing for something else is ridiculous, price, power draw, and flexibility are obviously too different.

@ Bolded

It really boggles my mind that everyone only looks at "how it looks" when comparing hardware specs.  You have to take into account performance too.  If PS4 and PS3 both have Diablo III running on ultra settings, they'll probably look the same in a still shot.  You then take an actual benchmark of performance and see that the PS3 is getting 17 frames and the PS4 is getting 117.  The looks aren't always everything.  When you say console games are looking close to their pc counter parts, half the time they are running at much, much lower resolutions.  Pushing more pixels is more demanding than you think.

The sad thing is when the 360 and PS3 were released, they were much closer to those PCs at the same timeframe whereas the upcoming consoles are not as close, and when Maxwell level hardware comes out next year, it's going to be WTF?