I need a link, mate. I don't know the difference between stock or non-stock graphics card. He said $200 - I cannot find any link to a $200 one.

https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rx480/

it seems its popularity has driven up the price, but look at the best buy price (out of stock of course) there is your 199

Probably a one-time deal. The cheapest on the best buy site is $250. I tried the newegg one and it added $25 as tax?! What's up with that?

God, I love facts.

In the PS4Pro, the cpu and gpu seem to be using different clock generators (like the XBox, unlike the PS4). The problem with AMD designs is they use a "pack as much as possible as tightly as possible" philosophy which tends to limit viable speeds rapidly, unlike NVidia that uses kind of a "keep it simple and leave space to breath" design philosophy.

Generally, the higher the clock rate, the more current you must provide (and remove!). At school, we learned that P = I^2*R is the heat dissipated in resistors, and you see it goes with the square of current I. AMD designs have the tendency to "totally lose it" above a certain current. A stock RX480 card already reaches 150W and for a 6TF card, easily passes 200W. Then you have to add an 8core "better than Jaguar" cpu which adds 60-90W depending on speed.

You have made many assumptions.

What Microsoft did with the Xbox One was boost it's "base clock" and not just the individual Multipliers, which meant that everything tied to that clock was boosted, you can bet your hens teeth the PS4 Pro is the same, it's a general consensus both AMD and Intel have come to in their chip designs as a good approach.
Heck, even nVidia reverted back to it with the removal of their seperate shader clock (Which is now tied to the Core clock).

As for AMD and nVidia, nVidia modified chunks of it's architecture to be able to drive up the clock rate on Pascal, AMD did not.
AMD and nVidia do an equal amount of work in trying to pack in as many transisters at every node, by using different types of transisters, optimizing layout to reducing leakage... etc'.
This was most evident during the prolonged 28nm cycle.

Polaris isn't clockrate limited because of how AMD packed it's transisters, nVidia specifically set-out to make Pascal a high-clocking part.

There is a ton more to it than that.
For instance...
Higher clockrates doesn't always mean more current, there are different types of transisters which have their own efficiency curves, some transisters that operate at higher frequency's are at their most efficient at a high clock rate.

Of course you have the layout and technology's like Resonant Clock Mesh that plays a role as well.

Resistors aren't the same as transisters and thus that equation can't be applied here.

The RX 480 card in a nut shell, was a disaster in terms of Performance/Power consumption, with that said, Teraflops also has no direct correllation with energy consumption.
Remember it is the Shaders * 2 * Clock Rate.

Typically a GPU will be more conservative with it's energy demands the wider it is (Up to a point.)
To think Polaris is going to be any kind of representation of what Scorpio is going to be is pretty silly, considering we have no idea what chip it's going to be derived from or how the chip is going to be fed.

As for Jaguar and it's sucessors, keep in mind they are low clocked, low powered parts, Jaguar's successor Puma and Puma+ have tangible benefits, run at the same clocks and have reduced power consumption at the same node.
Carizzo-L based on Puma+ will happily use 12-25w of power in a quad-core configuration, but that's not just for the CPU cores themselves, that includes the graphics units, memory controllers and various other pieces of logic and is thus not representative of how much energy is going to be consumed for the CPU cores themselves.

While I agree that Boost clocks is silly for a console...

But the price argument isn't as relevent this generation with the introduction of higher priced, higher performing more "premium" tiers of hardware.