I didn't know that there was this myth that consoles used to have better graphics than pcs until I registered on this site, I thought it was common knowledge to everyone that consoles have dated tech on release and pcs are always ahead, no matter console launch or when.

And yet, even though Nvidia mentions how GPU development back then was limited, and that it was infact the console makers who pushed the performance forward with their requirements, they fail to realize mention, that nowadays it's Nvidia/AMD who are constantly pushing those limits, so console makers don't need to do that.

It's no longer a situation where console makers go to them and say: "Let's see if you make this". No, now it's more like: "What can you offer us?" and then make little settings to best fit their plans.

And let's be honest here. If the PS4/X1 are underpowered compared to PCs, is not because they couldn't make more powerful consoles. No, they went with those specs because the market would not accept +500$/€ consoles that use more than 300W at load and need powerful fans to cool it.

Maybe the ease by which The Witcher 2 was ported to the XBox may give you an indication of how small the generational difference really is?

Or maybe nVidia is still annoyed at the fact they weren't the fastest game in town back then, but instead relegated to a small niche' of the entire GPU industry thanks to 3DFX, S3, ATI, Matrox, Rendition, NEC just to name a few. :P
It wasn't really untill the TNT 2 burst onto the scene with it's 32-bit everything that nVidia's fortunes finally started to change, they solidified that position with the first "GPU". - Aka. The Geforce 256 with it's fully Direct X 7 compliant hardware, TnL unit and all.

I used to have SLI 3dfx Voodoo 2's back in the day, paired up with an S3 Virge DX/XG as my 2D accellerator, was great playing every game with crystal clear image quality and fluidity. - That's right. You could even have multiple Graphics cards even back then!
ATI had it with the Rage Fury Maxx too.

When you got a Playstation or Playstation 2 port on the PC, the difference was night and day, PC's natively ran with far far higher resolutions out of the box and had Anti-Aliasing, better texture filtering and of course better framerates.
To put it in perspective, whilst the console were running at 640x480, I was doing 1024x768 on the Voodoo 2's, later when I upgraded my machine I jumped to 1280x1024, more than double of the consoles.
I actually *dont* recall any period in time where a console was ahead of the PC, at-least graphically.

Of course, today where consoles are only doing 1366x768 or lower with next generation topping out at 1920x1080, I'm at 7680x1440 and I am already looking towards getting my hands on a 11,520 × 2160 display set-up in the future.

lol that does look like one of those spam posts doesn't it...

So many games are Steamworks these days you usually don't have to sacrifice Steam if you buy through other stores as you are usually just buying a Steam key.

I agree.

If they have no interest in it, why did they do it before ?

It's true enough, but ever since AMD got the deal Nvidia has been salty as fuck. Consoles have never had better graphics than high end PCs.

They're still jealous from AMD?

@Permalite: I was merely using the same tone Nvidia used .

Off-topic: Do you really need so much screen space? That 7680x1440 setup of yours is already impressive, but 11,520 × 2160? Text should be illegible!

For me, until they start making monitors with almost no bezel, it's a no-go for eyefinity/surround. Why is taking them so long?!