b) That's just simply wrong. 8GB has been the standard in gaming PCs for at least 2 years now. Also slow DDR3 is just unacceptable for an APU where CPU and GPU share the bandwidth. So on the X1 it's actually even worse than on a PC with dedicated graphics.

c) For most of the generation last gen consoles came with 500GB. They started much lower though. For this gen the 500GB are like the 60GB we got at the start of last generation.

d) Now that is complete bull. GPUs need to do a lot more than just putting pixels on the screen. There is so much more to it that there simply is no "just fine" when it comes to GPU power. Even PS4 struggles with 1080p and 60 fps. And if it manages it will have a lot of cutbacks like reduced effects, textures and AA. The PS4 is only half as strong as it actually should be to have a comfortable start into a generation. Currently it's not even close to high end.

The standard for games has been 1080p and 60fps for at least since the conception of the new console hardware but the manufacturers decided to cheap out on it. And no I don't think we will see a major improvement over the next 6 years. GPGPU has potential but it is no holy grail. It will be used on PCs as well and those not only have the GPGPU power but pure uncut rendering power as well, which both consoles lack. It's just the start of the generation and the consoles already put out only midrange level graphics.

so it's not a problem for PS4, but it IS a problem for 95% of the PCs out there

Just take a look at the STEAM Survey (which is biased towards gamers, who have more than average RAM), you'll see that the average RAM is 6GB, and the Median RAM is 4 GB. SO PS4 has more than or equal to RAM as 88% of Steam Users, but probably 95% of all PC Users.

But you know what, PS4 has 8GB GDDR5

Second, CPU is always a bottleneck when it comes to the AI and Physics, and this is where the parallelization & GPGPU come into play! So if developers want it, it's there to be utilized, otherwise, nobody seems to be using it. AI is mostly a software issue, we just don't have a real program routine to write genuine AI, instead of just faking it.

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.