One thing for sure console gamer who buy the games will never worry about minimum spec, compatibility, Optimized for AMD or Nvidia, over clocking, benchmark, bl...bla...bla..., bugs, glitch, over size casing, hungry power supply especially. and fully utilize for the controller ( using dual shock 4 on PS4 is more amusing rather then using Dual shock 4 for PC :) )

The bolded is Not true

I always choose consoles. I rarely ever play any games on PC.

Ok, now I have an agenda.

I will try and be as simple and straightforward as possible. You can continue fighting a battle that isn't being fought to begin with.

Any reference I made to console costs in my Op is for the sole purpose of pointing out exactly what the consumer pays over the counter when picking up a console. And how for that price, at that time the consumer is willing and ready to pay for a console, its impossible to buy an off the shelf PC (like they would buy an off the shelf console) for their gaming needs at a price similar to the console. So the only way a consumer can still spend $400 to get a gaming PC that will match a console is if they built one. And building anything is not what the average consumer will ever want to do. Especially when you consider that if all they are willing to spend is $400, building becomes even more complicated than for someone willing to spend $800. This is not about what I think they should or shouldn't do. There are people that do just this. Point though, is that that is how much they are willing to spend. They are in a "console class" of hardware.

The subsequent references to cost shows that with each passing year, that decision becomes even easier for them because the consoles get cheaper over the counter and the prospect of bulding a PC at $250 becomes even more unrealistic. To agree/disagree with this is one thing. To go as far as accuse me of having an agenda is completely something else. 

No one is arguing that PC hardware doesn't improve, in truth 4 years into a consoles life the cheapest released GPU you can get for a PC in 2016/2017 will probably run circles around the PS4. No one is disputing that.

Now if you want to debate about the best way to create a criteria for PC to console graphic comparisons? Then I am all ears, cause that was all this has ever been about, and everything I have been doing; talking about all this other stuff was just to poingt that out to you. You say the only way would be to make an analysis of the actual components that goes into teh console, well I think doing so would be unfair to PCs and that is why I didn't do it. Or I could have just put up the PS4s BOM and show you prices based on teardowns and analysis of every component in the PS4. Which would give the PS4 an unfair price advantage over the PC cause of how sony/ms sources their components.

And you keep talking about what playstation and xbox gamers have done to ppl or not. My name is not playstation and xbox gamers. And what I am suggesting also applies to any other platform. I don't see how because some people do something , me coming here and saying we shouldn't do stuff like that somehow becomes a bad thing.

All I am saying is simple. And you can dispute this or not. Hardware should be compared to similar hardware. Be it comparing PS3 to 360, PS4 to XB1, R9 295x2 to a Titan...etc. And this shouldn't be that hard fr PCs cause there is always a model of hardwrae out there that matches what you have in consoles. Tell my why this is not possible, tell me why this is unreasonable, then on that we can actually have a discussion. Stop trying to make this about something it is not, even though I and others here has repeateadly told you what you are hammerring on is not what this thread is about.

And you do have a condescending tone, you are also throwing around accusations that are just not true. And I think that is cause you are inherently sensitive to certain topics so you are reading meaning into things that aren't there to begin with. Its ok, you aren't the only one here guilty of doing that. I just hope in all I have been saying you can actually see what I am trying to say. Cause at least, even though you have a condescending tone... you seem way more objective than someone else here.

Show me how I have tried to belittle anyone? Cause you can say stuff doesn't mean what you are saying is true. And the rest of this bolded part? well its exactly why I am refraining from getting into an meaningful discussion with you. But if thee is one ting I am happy about though, is that you at least now mention "benchmarks". Guess we are getting closer to home. You know you ae completely off the mark when you have to resort to the tone you are using and accusiing people of things that were never said or insinuated. 

What demonstrates what... what clear reply are you talking about... and if i ignored anything, its simply cause what you were talking about had nothing to do with this thread I can only indulge you so much. Or even worse, that its something I had already explained in this thread before. As I said, I can only indulge you so much. As the say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. There are only so many ways I can tell you or anyone else what this thread is actually about. Only so many ways. And that of all the posters in this thread only 4 people didn't "get it". And of that four, 2 of them now understand. As for you and the guy above you..... well, I think we have reached a point where its best to say lets just agree to disagree.

You keep talking about simple logic and maths. Yet you have offered nothing but accusations and off topic points. 

For the record, I have listenned to anyone that actually was talking about what I was trying to say in this thread. I have tried to tell those that misunderstood me (which also requires listenning to them by the way) that what they were talking about is not what I meant and tried to clarify. But I am guessing your idea of listenning must entail that I agree with what you are saying, even if what you are saying is accusing me of saying something I am not saying.

Whats really funny about all this, is that if you actually know how simple and starightforward all I am saying is you would probably feel stupid for derailing it all as much as you  have. My even replying you, for so long and considerring how wrong you are, is actually an act of respect to you as a person and the least insulting thing I could do. But no more. If you don't get it by now, you never will. Feel free to keep accusing me of stuff. 

So I'm being passive/aggressive, is that it?

Then I get this:

Which is saying that I'm being a downright asshole.

Can't be both I'm afraid, so people... Pick one, make a game of it even, amuse me.

I've already iterated upon this point multiple times, I do not see the requirement to do so again, but just for kicks and giggles...

If we were to magically build a PC that was equivalent to a PS4 in terms of "theoretical performance", it would be cheaper and it would still have better graphics which I have outlined previously and even provided examples.
I'm sorry if I didn't make that point any clearer.

And doubtfull, PC's performance increases is slowing down year-on-year, for a multitude of reasons. (Which is going to impact the next-gen of consoles, lol.)

After 4-5 years we are still using 40nm Caicos and Cayman based GPU parts (Terascale) in the low-end, which are barely competitive with an Xbox 360/Playstation 3 from a performance standpoint, mostly just cards that are designed to draw pretty pictures on a screen and not much else.

Exactly.

"The entire Picture". This little thing that you and a few others seem to insist on doing here is what completely derails this argument. 

You are trying to add a factor that has nothing to do with results trying to be achieved.

There is no cost issue. There is how a game runs on one platform as opposed to another. Ok. Let us take consoles outta the equation if that makes you feel better.

Can you do me a favour;

• can you tell me which sub $200 PC GPU runs BF4 teh best on PC assuming RAM and CPU are identical in your tests?
• Then can you tell me which sub $500 GPU runs the game best?

Then thats all that needs to be said. And I am not gonna argue with that. Just hoping that when others make comaprisons that they do just that. Use similar hardware. And you don't have to "magically" do anything. hardware that is like the PS4 is out there for sale. It may cost you $50 or $100 more, but its there.

And you can be passive agressive and condescending at the same time. Actually being really good at one makes you better at the other. 

Exactly, the entire picture includes every single facet pf a platform, that's generally what is called a "break down" or "analaysis", it then gives people an informed, informational overview of all the platforms competing for your dollar and thus all the pro's and con's that go with them.

Again, you haven't done any of that, just "what-if" scenario's.

You are *still* missing the point.

But the Playstation 4 is neither, $200 or $500.
You also have zero idea of the rest of the platform costs or the component costs inside the Playstation 4.

This is *why* a cost analysis needs to be performed, you are hell bent on comparing firstly by cost and then by performance, which both aspects fall on each other with a PC. - It's insane.

Intrinsic said: Its not that hard... LOOK, other people have done similar stuff!!!! So I am not crazy after all, cause this table shows theer is a right way to measure game performance. Do you see them mentioning price when talking about performance? If you look at the chart above you wil see that a PS4 is almost identical to a HD 7850. So why would any PC gamer feel the need to compare a game running on a HD7850 to it running on an R9 290x? Its not like the HD7850 or its equivalent just seized to exist. That is the point of this entire thread.

*Sigh* Because it's not as black and white as you think it is.

For starters... Since that "benchmark" was posted (If you can call it that.) drivers would have improved the performance of the Radeon 7850.
You also have the ability to overclock a Radeon 7850 beyond the level of a Playstation 4.
You also have choice with that particular card, where-as you are dictated to how you play games on a console.
For example on the Playstation 4 you had no choice but to run Battlefield 4 at high-quality settings and 900P with 60fps.
On the PC however with a Radeon 7850 you can run it with Ultra-quality settings, 1080P and 30fps if you so desired, probably push up to 40-50fps with overclocking thrown in.

Lets not forget a Radeon 7850 is *cheap* now because it's 3 years old.

Different worry though. For console games you don't have to worry about solving bugs and glitches yourself. Everyone is in the same boat and critical issues will be fixed. On PC you need to search message boards to find a solution for your particular setup if even available, then mess with drivers and gpu / sound settings to find a work around.