I recently bought a new gaming rig (my first actually). Around 17 000 NOK, don't know how much that is in dollars, but the same thing would cost around half in the US. Runs pretty much everything new on Ultra in 60 fps. I "only" have a 1080p screen but it's good enough for me. It's still not what I play the most right now though, that would be Smash on Wii U and Ruby and Sapphire on 3DS, my favourite consoles.

I bought a 1400 pounds computer in 2010. I can run all games at 60 fps, 1080p in maximum settings. The only thing that put my computer on its knees was the ubersampling setting in the Witcher 2. I upgraded it 2 year later with a HD7970 that I bought 350 pound.

Take into account I have a 200+ games library on Steam since 2007, and I barely bought full price games on it with all the sales. And full price on PC is much less than full price on console ^^

I'm now going to get another computer in anticipation of tech hungry games like The Witcher 3, Star Citizen, and I'm going to spend 2000 euros on it (because VAT for electronics products in France sucks)

Also, a lot of console only gamers on this site still claim that PC gaming requires a lot of tweaking in term of drivers and so on. It's not the case for me. My biggest problems was tinkering with effing GFWL, because some ignorant asshole at microsoft thought unifying Xbox Live and PC gamers was a good idea. Or looking for Durante's fix for Dark Soul. We're not in 2004 anymore, when Doom 3 was released and the videocard to run it on ultra had not been released yet ^^, or when we all had to change configuration because everybody wanted to play Crysis. Also, the consoles hardware have migrated closer to a PC architecture, and PC games have now much more in common with console games because devs build multiplatform games for production value.

I was tempted to make a thread "How many of you who mainly game on a console can run all games on 1080P/30fps and how much does it cost?" ;)

That's my point. ;)

Well yeah, unless somebody buys the few top end GPU's and/or slis/crossfires mid-ranged ones they aren't going to be able to put all the sliders up and check all the boxes and run 60 fps no worries. But like you said, there is a lot in between that extreme and console performance. And it doesn't scale with price linearly, is my point. There are diminishing performance returns for each dollar spent above a certain GPU. In my opinion, the marginal cost above a 280x/290 is too high, and it gets higher with each next card. 

Btw, I have also a PS3 and a Wii, loading times are really too long compared to my PC with Steam on a dedicated SSD.

The worst was when I bought MGS4. When I popped the disk in, I had to wait something like two hours between PS3 update and game update. This was soooo boring. I remember the Wii's loading time in MH3 being quite long. I remember the jump between cartridge and disc during PS1 time that really put me off console gaming ^^

It is never WAY faster than the 290X.  But yeah I don't really care why it is cheaper, only that it is.  Practically every recent game that has come out since the 970's launch has shown the 290 winning just as often as losing, if not more often.

P.S.  Yeah they had to lower the price on the 290, but it was a one year old card that had not seen a price drop yet!!!  The 970 is nothing special considering its competion is old hardware.

I will be able to do Ultra soon when I get Geforce 970 or 960.

Never say never ;)

And yes, those Benchmarks are cherrypicked.