PS4 is sweet spot of price/performance, Sony had to do it that way.

Looking at 6th/7th and 7th/8th performance jumps, PS4 is about the same as PS360 to Xbox 1. But, it falls somewhat short of what devs were hoping for (2.5TFLOPS) after such a long cycle.

Exactly.

So it's not a mith.

Personally I am very unhappy with the horsepower of PS4 and Xbone. I'm in the process of going back to PC gaming because next gen graphics on consoles are so underwhelming.

Xbox 360 beated almost every high end PC when it was released. I member buying a Radeon X1900XT GPU for $650 back in Spring of 2006 and still the Xbox 360 was just as powerful. Oblivion looked almost better on Xbox 360 than it did on my PC.

In comparison, today, my Radeon R9 290 ($400) PC is miles ahead the PS4 in grafix quality.

A lot of the difference in GPU power between last gen and current gen went in getting games from sub-HD and dropping below 30fps to getting them to (or close to) 1080p and/or 60fps.

The same will happen next gen too. People will expect an insane graphical leap, but wont consider that if developers opt for 4k resolution, a lot of the difference in GPU power will already be eaten up.

toss out all that crap in the op as the only part that really is different is the GPU.

Game dev is now directly related to what the GPU can do. This is why the CPUs in all three next-gen consoles are relatively crap as compared to the power ration in previous gens.

In the case of the most powerful GPU in next-gen consoles, the PS4s is still a gen behind current PC and so on.

So sure... on average PS4 is just fine, especially when you consider they get more power of PS4 due to it being a dedicated console vs general PC.

But, you can't say they it is equal to PC. med/high-end PC will always be capable of more so long as devs use it.

4K will not be here for a long time! Next Gen, I am expecting Video playback up to 4K but there is absolutely no way (and need) for games to be there. There are a magnitude of reasons.

a) The 4K TVs will still not be cheap

b) The 1080p TVs are usually sufficient unless you're talking 50+ inch TVs. (I am not saying that the difference is unnoticeable, it is just worth the cost yet, and for many people 1080p is good enough)

c) The vast majority of TVs will be 1080p or sub-4K, so 4K is not a viable option for console games just yet.

Yes, it is a PC Elitist Myth.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-myths,3694.html#xtor=RSS-998

Most people seem to ignore what I am actually saying and instead understand what they like it seems. Let me repeat, I am not claiming consoles have equal performance with high end PCs or there is no difference. Please read clearly....

The visible performance gap between PS4 and PCs at the maximum possibble resolution on the console of the era (dictated by the TV Standards, which is 1080p today, but was 720p last gen) is minimal. This gap used to be a lot larger with the PS3 vs PC, or PS2 vs PC, or PS1 vs PC. So, for its era, Playstation 4 is the most capable of all playstations. So yes, that is not a weak console at all, serves its purpose.

And yes, although X360 had a really good GPU for its time, it still had a significant disadvantage compared to the PC for various reasons, even at 720p or lower (the standard of the time). The same is true for PS3.

Once you settle for a highly reasonable 1080p to play, PS4 is way more than capable, and that is unless you want to go higher resolutions, which are just not possible on most TVs, and pointless for a console anyway. So if you don't game on a console any more, it's not because PS4 is weak (which it isn't) but it's because the common TV resolution is just not enough for you and/or you're spoiled by the ultra clarity provided to you by high end PC equipment.

Well first of all, the console are weak and that's what sony and microsoft wanted. Strong enough for a leap over last gen but not to much for more profit. The problem with last gen was that the console did cost to much to make and they had to sell at a lost for a long time, a mistake that none of them wanted to make again. Second, all your tech information and comparison are less than accurate and everything is mixed up. You cannot compare on numbers of core or the speed (megahertz) between a jaguar CPU and a desktop CPU, the performances are night and day and the numbers of core or the speed doesn't change that fact. Everything is custom in a console, there's no off the shelf parts in there, so direct comparison is not valid or gives no real mesure of real performance. One thing is sure these console were made to make good grafix at a reasonnable price, well for the PS4 at least.

First, please be specific about what's not accurate. Not that I write everything down religiously doesn't mean I don't know them. I have been a power PC user since 1986 from Commodore 64 & Amigas so I know well beyond many people here.

Second, who is comparing the core CPU hertz? I sure didn't. But now, are you telling me that Jaguar CPUs are slower than the Power PC Cores (which are 1998 technology!)? Those Jaguar CPUs have a single threaded performance (with one core active only) are faster than all 3 cores in an X360, not to mention one single core in PS3 (disregarding the 7 little cores reserved for specific uses). After all, the CPU is not the bottleneck here, there is hardly anyone who claims otherwise! Also yes, dual core i3/i5 cpus are probably still faster than APU with eight cores (and I sure didn't claim otherwise, but on the contrary I said they have poor single threaded performance) but those modern CPUs are barely even touched by modern games, which utilize almost universally less than 50% of a dual core CPU setup. This is without the Mantle like optimizations and low level calls on consoles. Basically faster CPUs are useless on consoles.

See this : http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-myths,3694.html#xtor=RSS-998

CPU, Memory, HDD, Bandwidth are all well beyond expectations. It's GPU that is controversial, which I am trying to explain, is not actually an issue, because those GPUs are not supposed to produce anything greater than 1080p and 60 fps, which PS4 already proved it's more than capable even first gen games. From this point, it'll only improve. This gen, there is absolutely no need to go beyond 1080p, because >99% of the TVs out there do not support it.

That underlined statement right there, is crucial! Xbox is definitely alarming and problematic for the true Next-Gen in its current form, because it fails to do 1080p on most titles, which is not necessarily because of the raw power, but mostly because of poor design and architecture.

Even cheap sub-par Steam PCs will soon start to rival and even surpass both consoles (in 1-2 years), it doesn't mean PS4 is underpowered as long as it can sustain the 1080p and 60 fps with improving graphics. However, XB1 is clearly underpowered as it can't even sustain the 1080p standard. That is THE point regardless of the brute power of the PCs, which is not very relevant here as they are in a different league (not for the better or worse, just different).

They're both underwhelming when you look at the specs... That's just the reality. There's been many points made in this thread addressing this already. You can easily build an affordable PC to match or exceed both new consoles, which is really where the disappointment lies.

At the end of the day though you should only care about the exclusives that each offers. There both capable consoles, but that doesn't mean that they're not underwhelming.

Steambox will eat both the PS4/X1's lunch in terms of performance over time.