Except, the big flaw is that the Playstation 4's GPU isn't as fast as a Radeon 7870 both in compute and memory bandwidth.
A Radeon 7850 with a memory OC is a better comparative point to the PS4's GPU, no I don't have one on hand. :P
Plus, Battlefield 4 on the Playstation 4 isn't even running at maximum quality settings either, it's only comparatively high-PC settings with inferior AA and AF.

Plus, Battlefield 4 is a cross generational game and not even the most demanding one at that, what happens in a year or two when games are more effects heavy and not even hitting 60fps and 900P? I fully expect games to end up all at 720P@30fps by generations end, developers have the option of running at 720P.

7870 can't even achieve 30fps at 1440P. - http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU13/707
In Metro 2033 a 7970 is only hitting roughly 35fps at 1440P.
In Metro Last light the nVidia Titan can't even achieve 25fps with everything on max, no hope for the PS4 in that game I'm afraid.

So one can assume that the already lowered visual fidelity that the Playstation 4 gets even at 900P would only be more pronounced at higher resolutions when compared to the PC.
Plus, the PC will be getting console-like overhead once mantle launches.

However with that in mind, the Playstation 4 is technically capable of rendering at that resolution, just not with any meaningfull results, just like how a Playstation 3 is potentially capable of running at 1440P, doesn't mean it's going to make use of it.

On the flip side, because the majority of games wouldn't be achieving 1440P by generations end and if the Playstation 4 was theoretically in an alternative universe built with that resolution in mind, then Sony would have been forced to include a hardware scaler which would have driven up costs or a reduction in some other piece of hardware.

The main point I was trying to get across was that AMD GPU's see a drop of less than 50% FPS from 900p to 1440p. In fact it looks closer to ~43%, so with the same settings at 1440p PS4 should run the game around 34 fps. At 1080p the drop is only about 10 to 15%.

In five years a top tier team could easly put together a PS4 game at 1440p with much improved graphics to what we have seen to date. Will it happen? I would not be suprised to see maybe Polyphony Digital try and pull something like this off with GT7. For the majority of games I expect PS4 to run at either 1080p 60fps or 1080p 30fps. There is no way Naughty Dog, Santa Monic, or Guerrilla Games will ever release a game below 1080p on PS4. We may see some multiplats dropping below 1080p, but anything on PS4 at 720p 30fps would mean some pretty massive downgrades to the XBO version.

As other people have said, even if the numbers are bigger, the noticieble difference by the human eye is diminishing.
I said this a year ago and got flamed for it (by people without vision), but now it seems its clear for (mostly) everyone.

Numbers wise you have a point though, but to really notice it you need to zoom in on images.

This.

Since OP is bringing screen resolution to the table:

Assuming screen size = 1

Assuming all pixels have equal size.

Asuming OP's data is correct.

- PS1 -> PS2:

Increase in number of pixels: 512x448-320x240 = 229376-76800  = 152576

PS1 pixel size: 1/76800 = 1.302x10^-5

PS2 pixel size: 1/229376 = 4.360x10^-6

So in the PS1 -> PS2 generational transition pixel size went down by: PS1 pixel size - PS2 pixel size = 8.66x10^-6

Efficiency:

(PS1 pixel size - PS2 pixel size)/(512x448-320x240) = 5.676x10^-11

So on average in the PS1 -> PS2 generational transition pixel size went down by 5.676x10^-11 per pixel added.

- PS3 -> PS4:

Increase in number of pixels: 1920x1080-1280x720 = 2073600-921600 = 1152000

PS3 pixel size: 1/921600 = 1.085x10^-6

PS4 pixel size: 1/2073600 = 4.823x10^-7

So in the PS3 -> PS4 generational transition pixel size went down by: PS3 pixel size - PS4 pixel size = 6.027x10^-7

Efficiency:

(PS3 pixel size - PS4 pixel size)/(1920x1080-1280x720) = 5.232x10^-13

So on average in the PS3 -> PS4 generational transition pixel size went down by 5.232x10^-13 per pixel added.

-Conclusions:

PS1 pixel size - PS2 pixel size = 8.66x10^-6

PS3 pixel size - PS4 pixel size = 6.027x10^-7

8.66x10^-6 > 6.027x10^-7. PS1-> PS2 is a bigger leap than PS3 -> PS4.

PS1 -> PS2: 5.676x10^-11

PS3 -> PS4: 5.232x10^-13

Adding a pixel is over 100 times less effective now than before. Diminishing returns.

ironmanDX said: I disagree, having said that I don't know as much on this topic as you. I think we should wait till later in the gen either way. Seems to early at the moment for this kind of talk, especially considering the consoles aren't even out yet!!

Holy shit. We agree!

It is pretty much this. There will be games on both sides that will look great, but it will get better as the years go by and the devs can learn how to getm ore out of these machines. This stuff is premature.

In terms of screen shots, yes, games are looking better but since PS2/xbox days, game have only improved in graphics and nothing else. Scale, immersion, variety etc are no better than it was on PS2/xbox. Perhaps next gen can fix that, which is why the graphics jump is not too high.

Maybe we WILL see 4k gaming...Tetris or some similar shit. AAA games? No way in hell. You'd be technically correct then, aka the best kind of correct :P

Not in Brazil, the PS4 costs 2 thousand dollars here and the Xbox one costs 1 thousand dollars (yes, the One is cheaper, and no, I don´t know why either)

Consoles in the age of austerity .. I don't know man, but I do expect to see a noticeable jump. Things are looking good already.

Deminishing Returns.