This means nothing and your scores are hilarious.

I have a GTX670 with i5 3570k and 16GB ram

My future PS4 will have better looking games than my current rig.

Not comparing how games look. Just core for core performance if PS4 parts were used to make a PC. 

And yeah I think you're too caught up in PS4 hype if you think your PC won't, and doesn't already have games that look as ood as PS4 games will. For in game footage, I didn't see anything that Killzone has visually over something like Metro or Cyrsis 3. 

Why would you do a "core for core" comparison using standard PC processors that have all the limitations of a PC vs custom console processors that have virtually none of the limitations of a PC? You also have to take into account their access to all available resources such as RAM, bus bandwidths, etc.

To quote an article from our main page here:

"You are underestimating the importance of shared memory and an on-die GPU. These features allow for modifying and using data on both processors without a readback from VRAM, which is a very expensive operation on PC GPUs that can cause pipeline stalls. For example, modern engines like Frostbite 2 even implement a software renderer for occlusion culling, rasterizing occlusion volumes on the CPU just to avoid a readback operation. You wouldn't need that on an architecture like the PS4. Shared memory would also allow things like generating geometry on the GPU, doing collision detection on the CPU and rasterizing on the GPU again without any readbacks or copying of memory. You just cannot build a PC with those features yet, no matter how much money you are willing to spend."

I realize you are a PC enthusiast, but there really is no point comparing PC components with Console components just yet because while the base components may share some similarities, the overall picture and use of resources is very very different. That's all.

It's not "very very" different. It's a little different but not enough to completely discount a comparison like this.  Now that PS4 is essentially an X86 PC and isn't based on an imaginary unlimited power architecture, the similarities between the two are actually comparable.

I am just going on specs that are revealed and doing a comparison I can. Once more data is available, I am sure people will do more in depth comparisons. 

Day 1

Probably it won't. With that rig, you'll be able to play games on high(or, better than PS4 graphics) for at least 5 years. I know I did with my 8800GTX.

I aint comparing raw performance, I am comparing what I'm seeing and what looks better visually, and the PS4 games Ive seen looks miles better than the games I have like BF3 on 2560x1440 in Ultra.

Yeah, Im not so sure...

Obviously they will polish up the preveiw "demos" they showcase for a yet unfinalized console, but even then, what we see as gameplay doesn't blow BF3 away. Even something like the new DmC running at full blast at 1080p@60 fps looks as good as anything they showed on PS4 that was confirmed as gameplay.

Youtube videos, and forum hupe aside... once you have the console in your hands and can see what it actually looks like on your 2560x1440, then we can talk. 

You are underestimating your PC too much :P at the very least it won't be "miles better."

My 4100 FX has a 7.x WEX rating. 4 is way too low.