PC's aren't limited to 1920x1080 (1080P)
2560x1600, 2560x1440 resolution monitors are available.
You can even throw several together in eyefinity or in surround gaming for 7680x1600 or 7680x1440 or even 3x 1080P screens for 5760x1080.
If you are running say... A couple of Titan GPU's on a crappy 1920x1080 TN monitor or TV, you are wasting performance and money.

And trust me, running games in eyefinity is stupidly demanding, but the experience is downright amazing that consoles will never be able to achieve.
This is eyefinity in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyQoFPO8RyA

As for where I learnt this stuff, well. Over the course of roughly 15 years being a hardware enthusiast it just starts to become second nature.
Most of it is from places like Anandtech, reading wikipedia, reading indepth hardware analyses of new architectures etc'.
Most of it is just logic, probably helps that I built some primitive processors back when I was in school too years ago which provided me with some funademental understanding on how it all works.

Also, I never said the PS4 needed 150-200GB/s, I said that's what these Billion dollar companies would have come to the conclusion of for best results, they run all sorts of tools to find out what is holding back architectures and then pass that information onto the general public in various whitepapers and documentation such as the reasonings on why AMD dropped VLIW5 for VLIW4 and then moved onto GCN.

But yes, I agree with you that PS4 games will look better, anyone who disputes that is silly.
As for geometry, it will make a big difference. I'll show you why.


Think of the left part of the picture as the PS3, think of the right hand side as a PS4, that is the difference a little bit of extra geometry does to a scene, it's not to be understated. (That's with everything else the same, I.E. textures, lighting, shadows etc'. - All will be upgraded on the PS4)
Right now games generally use flat ground.
Everything gets dialed up to 11 this next generation, well for consoles at-least, the PC has had all this technology for years, it's just only in the last year or two that games are starting to catch up.

1) So I'm right when we talk about raw power, PS4 is about 10x as powerful as PS3, not up to 15x, or more powerful?

2) I don't undertand how the jump from XB1 to 360 is only 10x, when the GFLOPS diff is about 15x. I know you said I shouldn't use GFLOPs to measure, since stuff like shaders have improved drastically, but the lack of an improvement in shaders wouldn't make the performance jump smaller.

Either way, not worth arguing, you admit that in 4 years the graphical jump was more insane then current gen jump, and if I were to argue anything (why are we arguing about PS4's performance, we both agree 9/10x or so), that's my arguement. Also I would argue that we see less improvements with similar jumps in power because of dimishinging return. 600-6,000 polygons is noticable, but 60,000 to 600,000 polygons isn't really. PS4/One will look good because they can have so many objects on screen. Killzone for instance had a whole city rendered, well I would add.

3) Okay, makes sense, I read about those 8 CPU's, I didn't realize the 230GFLOPS value accounted for unused cells.

4) I follow you half way, LOL. You say I can't us GFLOPS to measure performance, but here you are calculating GFLOPs.

Where did you find out the number of unified shaders?

Also I'm not basing my comparisions on core clock speed. I said:

I didn't say it to downgrade PS4's performance, just to make a point that not everything on PS4 improved so drastically. I didn't say anything wrong, but people assumed I was implying something by saying that.

----

Basically, what I've learnt from you is that you can't directly measure PS4's performance based off its specs. GFLOPS seems the best way to estimate a number (What's a better way?), but you need a raw benchmark because things like Memory Bandwidth, fill rate, and bus (something I know was PS2's bottleneck) affect performance. With consoles, you won't get that, since PS3/PS4 games run off 1 setting, where PC games can be altered.

Now I have a question, if Memory bandwidth is only a 5x improvement in the PS4 (38.4 -> 192 GB/s), will that hinder and help the PS4's performance? Is there a linear relationship, or exponential?

1) Yes, whole system is "at least 10x powerful as any current gen console" (Cerny on Jimmy Fallon's show)...GPU alone is more than 10x as powerful

2) Due to other specs not jumping as much (actually, most of them saw higher increase in this jump than in last) - though, tbh, PS3 to PS2 was much more radical jump than X360 to XBOX1. But yes, 10x in 8 years is not as impressive as 10x in 4 years, so I see why lot of people think it's not as big of a jump...16x overall performance would be much better, but that  would come with massive price and heating issues at this state of GPU tech (better CPU wouldn't hurt either).

BTW, Permalite made great post regarding some of the improvements in visuals we'll see in next-gen games - others include a lot better lighting/shadowing (that Deep Down demo), bigger worlds and better AI (hopefully - they've been promising this for years, but still FarCry 1 from 2004 has arguably  better AI than any modern FPS)

3) Yeah, usual mistake - people keep refining wiki though...not so long ago some really silly number stood in place of 176GFLOPS for RSX for example, glad someone with more knowledge changed it.

4) I was explaining you that core clock speed can't be used for comparisons alone without knowing what that core clock drives. So, if you know number of shaders/TMUs/ROPs and architecture you can make some educated guesses about performance based on that...of course, nothing beats real life benchmarks/aggregates.

As for memory bandwidth (btw, it's 22.4GB/s to 176GB/s), I gave you one good example (HD5550) how it affects overall performance when all other parameters are the same. Here's another one (7750 with same core clocks, one with 72GB/s bandwidth, other with 36GB/s):

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2012/msi_radeon_hd_7750_2gb_ddr3_test/index39.php&usg=ALkJrhi1G4TxkhzXnvN1ZfRJ3KdXukbpQQ?dummy=&advancedFilter=true&prod[]=AMD+Radeon+HD+7750+2GB+DDR3&prod[]=AMD+Radeon+HD+7750&filter[0][]=1680&filter[0][]=1920&filter[0][]=2560&filter[2][]=1&filter[2][]=2x2+SSAA&filter[2][]=2x2+SSAA+%2B+MLAA&filter[2][]=4&filter[2][]=8&filter[2][]=FXAA+-+hoch&filter[2][]=MLAA&filter[2][]=Post+AA&filter[3][]=16&aa=all

Again, Permalite made a good explanation on that.

XBone is about as powerful as PS4, and WiiU isn't that much more powerful then current gen consoles. Also PS4 is 9x more powerful then PS3, so if anything

X360 * 1.2 = PS3 * 1.4 = WiiU * 5.5 = XBOne * 1.15 = PS4.

In my view, this is probably the biggest advantage the PS4 has on the PS3. Also, in my  "battles" with Michael-5, these are some of the things I tried to explain. One component doesn't dictate the functions the whole system. 

This is on top of the fact that Cerny, himself, also said the PS4 was at least 10x the power of "any current gen hardware." I did my own calculations, just sheer math, and it too turned out to be a little over 10x. If it looks like one and quacks like one, it's probably a little ol' duck. ;)

1) Yea, but Microsoft also only say the One is 8-10x as powerful as the 360. I wouldn't go off what I heard in a show, I mean the title of this thread....

Pretty much everyone in this thread except CGI, and I guess you? believe it's around 10x. Read some of the comments between Pemalite and myself, 15x is way too high.

2) LOL well it's only fair to compare the most powerful systems of the gen. XB1 was the powerhouse last gen, PS3 is this gen, and PS4 will be next. If you compared PS3 to PS2 graphics, then the jump is 20x (since XB1 is 2x as powerful as PS2). So in the read world, since most people played PS2's, the jump from 6th -> 7th gen was twice as large, in half the time period.

Also I find it interesting how graphics will improve next gen. I'm looking very forward to flat textures disappearing , and better AI.

4) People extrapolated what I said, I only said that not everything in PS4 improved by 10x, GPU speed is only 3x, but this basically means nothing, since like Pemalite and you say, you don't know the number of shaders. Still, people took it as an offensive against the PS4, but it really wasn't. A lot of PS4 supporters are very defensive of their product.

Yup, I think this whole comparision between PS3/PS4 sprouted from nothing LOL. Wait, it sprouted from this comment, which was right in the end.

I clearly underballed WiiU, more then anything, yet no one defends the WiiU. Shows you the difference between PS4 fans (blood thirsty animals) to WiiU fans.

P.S. not calling anyone a fanboy, you can love both the PS4/WiiU, but  I just find it funny that people who love the PS4 defend it so heavily over nothing, but WiiU gets people attacking it, like Captain_Tom saying KZ2 looks better then any WiiU game, and no one, but me defends it.

Sad sad times where there is so much Hate and misinformed people towards the WiiU

1) Yeah, it seems MS can't make up their minds

2) LOL, well if you look at it that way, Wii sold most in 7th gen, so jump from 7th to 8th is completely insane ;)

4) I think the point of responses was more for you to realize how clock speed is completely irrelevant without knowing other parameters...if it makes any difference, I have no problem saying PS3 was pretty bad product, 360 was great (except for RRoD) and PS4 seems to be pretty good.

As for that original comparison, I'd say it's more or less accurate - PS4 is more than 1.15x XOne though, depending on how much those MOVE engines are making XOne's GPU to perform closer to full blown 7790 (which unfortunately it is not), I'd say it's between 1.4x-1.6x...though, PS4's GPU has some great enhancements, so it may be even more. Also, WiiU is still enigma (160 or 320 shaders), it can be lower than what you put, but also slightly higher.

1) Yea, but Microsoft also only say the One is 8-10x as powerful as the 360. I wouldn't go off what I heard in a show, I mean the title of this thread....

Pretty much everyone in this thread except CGI, and I guess you? believe it's around 10x. Read some of the comments between Pemalite and myself, 15x is way too high.

2) LOL well it's only fair to compare the most powerful systems of the gen. XB1 was the powerhouse last gen, PS3 is this gen, and PS4 will be next. If you compared PS3 to PS2 graphics, then the jump is 20x (since XB1 is 2x as powerful as PS2). So in the read world, since most people played PS2's, the jump from 6th -> 7th gen was twice as large, in half the time period.

Also I find it interesting how graphics will improve next gen. I'm looking very forward to flat textures disappearing , and better AI.

4) People extrapolated what I said, I only said that not everything in PS4 improved by 10x, GPU speed is only 3x, but this basically means nothing, since like Pemalite and you say, you don't know the number of shaders. Still, people took it as an offensive against the PS4, but it really wasn't. A lot of PS4 supporters are very defensive of their product.

Yup, I think this whole comparision between PS3/PS4 sprouted from nothing LOL. Wait, it sprouted from this comment, which was right in the end.

I clearly underballed WiiU, more then anything, yet no one defends the WiiU. Shows you the difference between PS4 fans (blood thirsty animals) to WiiU fans.

P.S. not calling anyone a fanboy, you can love both the PS4/WiiU, but  I just find it funny that people who love the PS4 defend it so heavily over nothing, but WiiU gets people attacking it, like Captain_Tom saying KZ2 looks better then any WiiU game, and no one, but me defends it.

Sad sad times where there is so much Hate and misinformed people towards the WiiU