Yeah then games like Gran Turismo, Assassin's Creed, The Elder Scrolls do sell similar numbers to major FPS games like BF and Halo, but thing is no single genre is as dominant in general as FPS games.

Also no games sell like COD on a release-by-release basis other than GTA.

Maybe they can use every bit to the fullest 4-5 years into the Gen, but it's pretty rare 8 months in.

I already acknowledged that in the bolded. You can treat your PC like a console if you want, but its more hassle/less convienient, less ergonomic and probably lower value for money, not to mention lacking in AAA exclusives (of the kind that I like). Furthermore I don't even like desktops, i use a laptop; so matching the PS4- not simply in specs, but actual performance- will probably be even more of a financial burden.

PC is great if you want graphics
Consoles are great if you want... all the rest.

Not really sure I should answer you after that "if the PS4 utilized even 5% of its GPU's proccessing power it would destroy anything out there" since I believe nothing I can say here will change your mind, but, oh well. Unfortunately I couldn't find benchmarks for both the Celeron and the Athlon 5150 on Futuremark(which would be a better comparison since it's a gaming related test) and, while you're right that Passmark isn't gaming, it does indicate quite precisely a processors performance, when one Celeron core is performing better at it than 2 Jaguar cores you can expect absolutely the same in gaming scenarios, that's exactly why those Intel Atom dual-core smartphone processors beat Quad Core Snapdragons, more cores doesn't mean anything if single core performance isn't up to par. That's exactly why in Passmark the FX-6300 and the i5-2500K are pretty much on par, even if the i5-2500K has 2 less cores. Based on the benchmark you posted, 2 extra cores scored about 2 frames of difference. If going by your logic that more cores = better, ignoring single-core performance, then how it isn't doing much better than an i5 processor? As I said, performance isn't measured by only the amount of cores on the processor, architecture, clock speed and TDP requirements are just as important.

Anyway, I've got some Athlon 5350 benchmarks so you can just see how much bottlenecking these low-power processors are probably causing on the 7970M/7850-like card on PS4. This processor is clocked higher than the 5150(which matches PS4's processor in architecture and clock speed, only with 2 less cores), so it should deliver a better representation of how a PS4 APU would perform:

Any CPU heavy game and framerates go down by almost 50%. And that's with a GTX 750Ti, much slower than a 7970M/7850. That's actually the main problem with creating a similar PC hardware as these next-gen consoles. Their hardware is so unbalanced between CPU and GPU that you can't expect good performance running similar PC hardware, since PC games usually aren't that well optimized and using such a weak CPU can choke down the whole system.

Sure, console games keep improving during the gen, further increasing the difference between the console build and the pc build on similar hardware.
My point was that if you want to match gaming performance you'll need quite a bit of overhead in raw power, and even then you're not guaranteed a smooth experience. Adjusting the settings on the fly in heavy scenes has been done for you on console.

Like what?  The Teamspeak community I'm in has over 50 active members.  Some play games together and play a wide variety.  On console 80% of my friends play FPS games, the other 20% play single player games.   Steam is also dirt cheap, minecraft mods make the game vastly better, and I can  sell items that get dropped in matches from Valve games.  Sold a blue Pudge mustache item for $30 a month ago that I got from a normal game in dota2. 

The only thing I prefer consoles for is my fps fix, some exclusives, and features (Which is why I got an XBO as its far superior than any other console in the feature aspect).    And sports games.  They get no support on PC and the controls are terrible without a controller. 

And you are proving nothing.  Yes a 12-threaded  i7 beats a 2 GHz AMD quad-core.  Surprise!  However the PS4 does not have a quadcore, and it can offload some of its processing to the GPU if it needs to; which will be much less of a drain on it than you would expect (I have done this before on my PC using different programs).  

Also notice that in some games it isn't even bottlenecked lol!   So yeah give it some more cores and optimize the code and it isn't an issue like I said.  Thank you for the graphic that perfectly backs up my point!

P.S.  I own a kabini CPU (The Athlon 5350 comes from this line), an i7, and quite a few other cpu's and gpu's.  You are not teaching me anything.  My opinions have been formed by actually knowing what I am talking about from first-hand experience.

Yes plugging in two things is a lot harder than pluggin in two thi- Hey wait! No it's just as easy. 

That's the problem though, trying to match a PS4's performance is what makes you spend too much money for little performance. Can you match a ps4 for $400? No, anyone who says that is dead wrong. But if you're willing to spend 800, you'll probably get something a lot better performance-wise.