Identifying the number of low end laptops by the frequency of their onboard GPUS then removing the low end laptops from the calculation results in a more accurate picture of PC averages.

As i have been trying to get through to him, steam stats are heavily skewed by the number of people that install steam on their laptops regardless of if their laptop is powerful enough, many do so for little games or old games, and many do so just to buy games during sales while away from home, or to chat to friends.

The very steam statistics page you yourself linked to as "objective and unbiased truth" clearly states the average is 8GB, and thats even with all the low end laptops factored in.

Additionally, the very steam statistics page you yourself linked to as "objective and unbiased truth" clearly states that 78% of OS used by steam users is 64bit (meaning only 22% use 32bit), ALL mac users are using 64bit, and only 0.07% of linux users are using 32bit.

You are now pulling numbers out of your ass, numbers your own "evidence" clearly debunks.

Yes yes, I get that, and I do agree. But you're missing the point. You're also dismissing the very information that, gamer or not, the average PC cannot hold a candle to the performance of PS4. But screw that, all that doesn't matter! This is not exactly a race against the PC, which you can never win. This is more to do with the relative performance of consoles with respect to PCs.

Look, this is not a matter of "conflicting opinions".... this is a matter of "conflicting perspectives". You're looking at it the wrong way...

The PCs can be infinitely better than Consoles, to no use... We have a certain high end resolution and frame rate. Going beyond is of no use to anyone on a console. The point here is that PS4, with respect to high end PCs today, is in a much better spot than PS3 was against the high end PCs of its era.

When PS3 was released, most games were already using more than 256 MB + 256 MB RAM, and single threaded performance was way better than PS4's Cell (without the help from extra processors). Its GPU was crippled from the get go. So most PC games had to be downsized and sacrificied in quality. Even years later, PS3 ports never look as good as their PC ports. The difference between PC and PS4 ports, on the other hand is minimal.

Yes, PCs will always have an edge;

a) will be able play games on resolutions over 1080p but most TVs don't support that

b) will be able to sustain 60 fps more often, but the perceived impact is much less subtle.

c) yes, high end PCs will possibly have better AA, a bit more refined detail etc, but that's it.

d) more RAM (than 5 GB) will not utilized for a long time in games

e) PS4 will always have more stable drivers, with better CPU utilizations, and customization.

so when you look at this way, the performance gap between Playstation and the PC had never been this small, and playstation had never been this capable compared to the competition of its era. So, no, PS4 is not a weak console at all. XB1 could have been nearly as good if only they had taken the right decisions with the RAM bandwidth and architecture.

Its not a myth. Though "too weak" is overstating it.

The truth is they arent the leap they could have been. I wish i still had the links to show you what real next-gen would be.
Its stuff like ants moving in a log in the background. All the veigns of a tree log rendered,etc. Pretty amazing stuff. When you see that its clear that next-gen is just current-gen +.

Removing all low end laptops? Thats a bit harsh.

The way i see it most PC gamers are playing games like Dota, Dota 2, LoL and other popular MMO's. The markets of these games dwarf the rest of the PC market given the number of active players and revenue they bring in...look at the growth of steam since Dota 2..

It doesnt take a fancy PC to play these games and a lot of gamers actually play these games on laptops. These games specifically cater for it precisely because a lot of the gamers will play at lower settings. Another thing is that a lot of PC gamers are not actually interested in games outside of the ones mentioned above...which means they dont really have an incentive to go and get a great gaming PC.

Anyways i think your view on what makes up an average gaming PC or mainstream PC is a bit skewed. You mentioned in your post that the average gamer has a quad core cpu and many have hyperthreading as well...that implies that the average gamer has an i7 since most i5's dont have hyperthreading. Thats a pretty crazy assumption...I would say the average PC gamer has a dual core cpu with a low/mid end gpu (desktop) or a laptop that can run the games he/she wants to play.

And as for mainstream PC's i would say that mainstream PC's are either shitty desktops bought by clueless people or are laptops.

I guess steam stats back up my claims but thats not really my point. I think you will be surprised the amount of gamers who dont have decent gaming PC's like the one you see in my sig.

Anyways im not really arguing against you...i dont agree with most of the stuff OP said but i think your view on what is the average gamer PC or mainstream PC is a bit off.

You read the survey wrong, most people are using Nvidia stuff, it's over 50% lol..... nub. Also, yes, the consoles are weak, but it's the games that matter in the end, I wouldn't worry about the power so much, not everybody has the money for a nice PC, though it'd still be my #1 choice if I only have the money for 1 option.

Also, a dual core i3 or AMD alternatives are still faster than 8 core Jaguar for gaming because of efficiency and the frequency they run at, which means quad core CPUs pretty much rape the consoles and it's at 44% while dual cores and tri cores are at almost 50% which means pretty much all PCs have actual faster CPUs for games.

I really don't get the point of this thread if you are going to read the stats wrong.

It doesn't state that the average RAM is 8 GB. It states that the MOST COMMON RAM for the STEAM USERS is 8 GB. When you actually DO CALCULATE (like I did, using the percentages next to each RAM, taking the weighted average), you find out that the average RAM is 6 GB, and median RAM (the 50%th user's RAM) is 4 GB. Let's learn some statistics.

Yes, Steam users have 22% 32 bit OS running but they are not all the PCs. We know that almost 30% of the PCs around the world run the 32 bit Windows XP beside other 32 bit versions. So even this 22% of 32 bit windows is obviously a statistical low end, since casuals will obviously be more 32-bit prone and have less memory :)

Comparisons with PC are useless to me. I am console-only gamer and to me next-gen is definitely a big bump in specs and graphics.
If I take a look back how the first games looked I am looking forward to new games in the future.

As I said in the other thread.

The Xbox 360 GPU was top end when it released. The Cell on PS3 was cutting edge. Both Xbox One and PS4 are mid range builds at best and with the release of the 800 series this / next year both will be considered budget buillds within the next year or so.

In comparison to PC at the same time as release this generation is pretty underpowered. Both should have had a 2 TF GPU at minimum. Still though they will have some beautiful games and theres no reason not to enjoy either system just be prepared for them to be pretty significantly behind in graphics as we can already see with games releasing not even hitting 1080p especially on the Xbox One but also PS4 soon.

The performance gap between the PS4 (the newest console) and the newest PC game tech is massive. (doesnt make sense to compare it to "average" pc)
If it makes you feel better to say "no thats not fair, you have to compare it to the average pc not the new high end stuff", then thats just cherry picking the situation, i wouldnt say "my new ford fiesta is faster than any nissan!", then whine and say the GT-R and every other faster car doesnt count because the average persons nissan isnt fast.

You compare the latest tech for consoles with the latest tech from PCs, and what you get is a gap just as wide now, as its always been.