That's pretty crazy, your list of graphcs cards and brand hopping to each best one of that gen but maintaining sense in not spending stupid money basically mirrors mine...although I did splash out on a GTX285 :p Good old Geforce 2 MX400...that was a hell of a good card for the money, as was the Ti4200...

Started off on a PowerVR Apocalypse 3dx more than 15 years ago...don't like thinking about that, makes me feel very old :( I know it couldn't match a Voodoo 1 but it came free with a 12 month magazine subscription, didn't even have a proper OpenGL implementation and needed a mini port driver on a game by game basis later on...I remmeber Videologic finally getting off it's arse and doing a Half Life one...ahhh it was gaming bliss...although a bit messy as the PowerVR chip didn't support some of the needed features but...was my first proper taste of bilinear filtering...woohooo lol. (The alleged 3d features of the ViRGE 325 from S3 doesn't really count as running Jedi Knight at 320x240 which was it's limit to use it's 3d never really did it for me)...sorry thanks for letting me remember my life as a young 'un :)

blah, blah, blah.....here we go again.

What's up with Nvidia they seem to have a awful bad grudge against the PS4

There biggest rival, AMD, is going to make money off of all three game consoles this generation. The Wii U, PS4, and "720" all feature AMD Gpus. Last gen the Wii and 360 had AMD GPU's. The PS3 was the only console with an Nvidia GPU. Now Sony has gone with AMD. They seem bitter.  Truthfully, I don't think they are bitter. I think they just trying to downplay game console business because it isn't a source of revenue for them.

Let me understand this.  So last gen the 360 and Wii had AMD/ATI GPUs and AMD is still in the red.  Now AMD will have a lock on all three major console OEMs and people feel that AMD is not going to make a profit.  If history is to be believed, AMD probably are not pricing their chips right and still we be in the red.  Going for the lowest bid but not being able to make a profit does not sound like a sound business stragety.

It appears to me that Nvidia has other interest and yes, whatever they are doing will be a competitor to the next gen consoles.  The key is will their solution be better which only time will tell.  There is no bitterness going on here, this is business and competitiors are always looking for the marketing advantage.

With all three consoles using AMD the company expect to account per 20% of the revenue in 2013... AMD is not only consoles... eveything else put the AMD in the red, not consoles.

It's simple actually. AMD has got a deal of let's say at least 50 ml APUs at $200 each in few years. It's 10 billion dollars of revenue that NVDIA threw down the drain. So they are doing what losers to best: bad mothing the competition. 

Is the Titan GPU more powerful than the PS4's? Sure. 3x? Prove it. 3x, is more like the cost of the Titan. Then there is another thing to say: no one needs that amount of power in a 1080p screen. People are already much more excited for games like the incoming The Last of Us, Beyond: Two Souls, GTA V than for a stupid piece of HW that costs itself probably more than the two incoming next gen consoles. Becasue at the end we want good games. The HW alone doesn't produce them.

How much is this Titan and will I be able to plug it in my TV and play?

Actually, resolution is just one aspect of graphics.
You can grab a PS2's graphics chip and provided it has a large enough frame buffer... Run games at full 1080P.
Mind you... Expect horrible textures, no lighting, no Anti-Aliasing, no Anistropic Filtering, no 60/120fps, minimal shader effects, 2D sprites for things like Tree's instead of full 3D models... etc' etc'.
To say "Titan" can't be fully utilised at 1080P is completely false, developers can use the extra resources for extra/new effects that simply wasn't possible before.
Just like how we would never need more than 640k of ram... Never say never in tech.

I would also beleive that Titan is 3x more powerfull than a mid-range Radeon 7850 graphics chip, besides... Titan is a new architecture, it's going to take time (Think months) for the drivers to tap some extra performance out of it, heck I would pitch my system to be what, 4-5x faster just for the graphics?

But what really gets under the skin of people is how the PS4 isn't even equivalent to a high-end PC in terms of performance, it's got a low-end processor, paired up with a mid-range graphics card, it's no contest on what's faster and seeing people argue this point is completely silly.

If you think optimisation is important to squeeze more out of the hardware, then sure. Consoles have that edge, but only because PC ports/developers aren't willing to go to that same length and spend the extra cash, but PC's always have better graphics, optimisation or not.

Sorry to dissapoint you but the Titan architecture was released in early 2012... it is the same Kepler already existent in profissional market.. why some guys here say Titan is a new arch???

GK110 almost had one year... Titan is part of Kepler Architecture like GTX 680... nothing new here... the Tesla GPU was already using the Titan GPU since May 2012.

The new nVidia Architecture, Maxwell, is to be released in 2014.

Titan is old/current tech.