First to start, octa-core is nice but the cores *are* low-performance. There are 2-core CPUs which have more performance, you cannot add all cores together, especially if they share ressources by a large amount.

Second, consoles have currently ~5GB of RAM available and gamer PCs easily have more and more free.

I agree it's a good jump to last-gen but don't go to the land of PC comparison, especially if details are not thoroughly understood.

But who cares for PC gaming, anyway?

a) Those Consoles come with octo-core processors, which is well beyond the main stream pc with dual core. It's true that those cores have relatively poor single threaded performance but with the sufficient level of parallelism and low level calls, CPUs had never been this fast in relative terms (compared to PCs). So the CPU performance will never be an issue. Also keep in mind that the CPU performance improvements have slowed tremendously at the last decade.

Average gamer these days has a quad core or higher, and many have hyperthreading thus creating twice as many logical processors, take for example my 6 core cpu, it has 12 logical processors, the average PC cpu also has more L1 and L2 cache.

b) The amount of RAM (8 GB) is well beyond the main stream PC (4-6 GB) today, which had never happened. Most games are not even programmed to run on more than 3 GB, and this is the first time in history, where the console ports don't have to be downsized at all. In comparison, 1 GB was the mainstream RAM when the 7th Gen consoles arrived with only 1/2 RAM including the graphics, and 128 MB was the mainstream when PS2 arrived with 32 MB! Also today we have so much RAM on our PCs that the capacity increases came to a crawl.

Mainstream Pcs generally have 8GB of ram and at least 1GB ram for GPU, totalling 9GB of usable ram for the average PC, enthusiast pcs have much higher, mine for example has 64gb system ram and 6gb vram, PS4 has to share its ram between gpu, cpu and OS, with around 2-3gb reserved for the OS, developers generally get only about 5 to 5.5gb to use on actual games.

c) 500 GB, although still may be not much for today's games, is relatively abundant compared to the debut with the 7th Gen. consoles.

And relatively small to all but pre-2010 laptops.

d) The GPU seems to be archiles heel, at least with the XB1. However, it's unfair to the PS4 as it seems to be just fine with 1080p and up to 60 fps. We know that the graphics will improve over time, squeezing either better graphics or more stable performance. Given that most TVs today are not capable of producing resolutions greater than 1080p, there really is no point in putting a higher GPU than what PS4 has over the long run.

You went from trying to prove consoles arent weak to bashing the xbox one in the not-so-subtle way, good job.

e) PS4 employs a super fast GDDR5, equivalent to the PC tech, but just much more of it. Games, which are not designed with this in mind will not magically look better, but they will come in time. Couple this with many exciting technologies, none of which has been implemented yet, which are more likely to see on consoles than on the PC.

Most modern PC gpus are PCIE, and can handle way higher, had the Xbox One used 128mb esram  we wouldnt be having this discussion.

In short, PS4 is the most balanced machine out there for the long term, and is more than capable to serve as long as PS3 did. XB1, on the other hand, although similar, is crippled by its inefficient design, with respect to the RAM Bandwidth. If only XB1 had incorporated GDDR5 instead of DDR3 + ESRAM (or at least a DDR3+GDDR5 solution similar to PS3), ditching the Kinect, things would be much rosier for it now.

Steamboxes say hi, and all the Xbox one needed was 64mb, ot 128mb of esram and it would have been fine.

You only see what you wanna see, right? You sound like a real PC-elitist, with little touch to reality. Now please read what I did write...

Let's remember that compared to the 7th Generation console designs, the vast majority of developers are relatively much happier this time around