Hd 7850 and i5-2500k with 8gb of ram. I guess Cpu wise I've got the equal or slight superior to the Jaguar cpu's in X1 and Ps4. Gpu wise I've got the X1 licked and the Ps4 has me beat,but not by much. Same amount of ram as both consoles (my gpu has 2gb of Gddr5 ram, I think. ) My uncle built my rig for me last year. I watched and learned how to do it.

oh no, not good for "The Elite PC Gamer" that always seem to chime in about graphics. "what does it matter what version looks better, anyone who concerns themselves with graphics is doing it wrong, pc all the way"

What do the two have to do with one another? Just because the average PC gamer doesn't have a high end rig doesn't change the fact that you could build a rig that would be able to push graphics further than consoles.

lol, I'm part of the intergrated graphics card group...

Just 2 days ago I logged into my laptop, after not doing it in a week, and the survey pops up... right there! When I logged in my laptop! And 80% of the time I'm logged in on my desktop PC!!

-Laptop is a quad-core Llano at 1.4Ghz with 8GB RAM, Radeon 6520G GPU and only 512MB VRAM, and 500GB HDD. Have it only because I needed a cheap laptop with kinda decent gaming capabilities (I can even overclock it)...
-Meanwhile, my desktop PC runs a Quad-Core Phenom 965 @ 3.4Ghz, 12GB RAM and an overclocked HD7850 with 2GB VRAM, and 2TB of HDD storage...

I still submitted the specs...

Not all of this is new to me. I read a few years ago that the majority of PC gamer's tend to have mid range components; with mid range graphic cards, it follows for a mid range cpu too. Also, you mostly see those with a monster pc in forums (anecdotal).

With that said, I'd imagine most PC gamers with mid range cards from Nvidia's 200 to 500 series (equivalent to AMD's 5000 to 7000 series). Obviously they offered more power than PS360, hence 1080p gaming.

Now taking AMD's 78xx or better and Nvidia's 600/700 Kepler series beginning with the GTX660Ti, and you're looking at power that is equivalent and better than PS4 and X1 as you move up.

Also, the CPU found in PS4 and X1 may sound impressive (and for their implementation, it's enough) but they really are composed of netbook-architecture (AMD's Jaguar), so PC gamers with a desktop Intel Core i3 would be just as well off.

As for me, I will be sticking out most of my setup. I'm currently debating pulling the trigger on a GTX760 but I'm trying to wait for Maxwell and Volcanic Islands.

So much for PC master race.

The vast majority of PC gamers do act like this. I don't want to just slap a percentage, but the nearly every one I run into acts this way or is even more obnoxious.

Windows XP, 1st gen Phenom X3, 4GB of RAM and a GTS 450, and I'm still running almost every game out there at maximum settings. It's not like you need a powerful PC to run games nowadays much better than consoles, I'm quite sure the graph will change when the minimum requirements go up thanks to the new consoles. I'm planning to upgrade my PC after the release of the next-gen consoles, and I'm quite sure most PC gamers with old rigs are thinking to do the same, so expect the specs to go up in november's Steam survey.

Mine is comparable to the WiiU I think.

It ran BioShock and Tomb Raider in medium reasonably well. I hope the games coming are still playable on my PC.