Isn't the actual problem what MS has to offer beyond price and performance? Most people will not give a shit if something is 4k upscaled or natively rendered because frankly most people don't know the difference. And looking around, most console gamers also don't give ashit about frame rates. So what's there beyond that? So far MS hasn't captured people with their exclusives and I don't think that will massively change with Scorpio.

I would preorder the Scorpio instantly if it had the amount of PS4 exclusive games that I want to play, but it doesn't and I know I don't have to hold my breath for it.

Yeah.. and those graphic cards cost around $900 over here. So what is your point?

By next year, it will be about 800 dollars. If we factor in MS buying a bundle of these gpu it will be about 600 dollars. See how that works son?

The main problem here is that original Xbox One despite all DRM and always online controversies had some advantages which Scorpio won't have:

- The good image of Xbox brand in people's mind after 360

- It had a lot of exclusive games. (So even PC gamers bought XOne just for these games)

So, it will be really hard for Scorpio to sell better than original XOne

Which GPU is that? It was only a few days ago you were saying the Scorpio would perform akin to a 9 - 10tf PC, but i'm not aware of any 20tf GPU's :p

Doesn't matter what MS are going to sell the Scorpio for, the PS4 pro will always be the cheaper of the two.

The PS4/PS4 pro with a year head start and leading this gen comfortably

I know you are being sarcastic.

But you can have a 20 Teraflop PC configuration. 
* You just need four Radeon 290X's in Crossfire which is 22.4 Teraflops.
* Two Radeon Pro Duo's in Crossfire would give you 32.6 Teraflops.
* Three Fury X GPU's would give you 25.8 Teraflops.
* You can also do 20 Teraflops with four Radeon 480's.

Any Radeon 480, 390, 390X, Fury, Nano, Fury X, Radeon Pro Duo, 295 X2, 290, 290X, 7990, 6990 in a Dual-GPU configuration can hit 10 Teraflops or more.

Vega is likely to do anywhere from 6-10 Teraflops for a single GPU...

But this undermines the entire issue at hand. Despite many of these configurations having roughly the same theoretical "flop" number, in the real world they do and can perform vastly differently for various reasons and thus flops is not an accurate denominator for gauging the complete capabilities of a graphics processing unit.

Relative to release date (and without significant losses on the manufactures end), it's likely pretty close. The Scorpio could very well end up being $400 too, but that would (at least in an isolated comparison) prove the point. If something has to wait a year to cost $400 and be more powerful, then it was clearly more than they could previously offer for $400. If it costs more than $400, then the point is doubled down.

I know there are configurations that can hit the overall mark, as it happens i was building this ( http://imgur.com/DXvvKv7 ) today, which would hit around 16.5tf (or at least the base versions would, these's ones are slightly clocked up).

His wording though (coupled with other replies, and his discussion with CGI in the thread i was referencing) implies he was referring to a single GPU. Both here and in that other thread though he was actually referring to performance (which makes everything much more complicated, both because of the reason you noted, and because SLI isn't 100% efficient), so i was replying relative to his previous estimate for what the Scorpio would be capable of, versus whatever PC he was imagining in the world where flops made for perfectly linear comparisons. 

In order for Scorpio to be $399, MS will have to eat $100 to $200 on every console sold. Its hard to say how much they will have to subsidize, but I'm being generous no doubt. It could be more.

Pro was able to sell at $399 because PS didn't get AMD to modify the CPU or GPU used this time around. In PS4, PS had AMD modify Jaguar and Pitcairn to match what they required. This time for Pro, the same Jaguar cores in the PS4 are used, they are just using AMD's new 14/16nm tech now, which allows the bump in clock speed. The GPU however is not Pitcairn, it is AMD's newest 14/16nm Polaris tech, without modifications. The only semi-custom part is that Jaguar and Polaris are fabbed together on an APU, which is not a stock AMD chip. Polaris being a mid-range GPU and the fact that it was fairly easy to slap Jaguar and Polaris together is why Pro is so cheap.

People couldn't believe that AMD's new Polaris 480 graphics cards were only msrp $199. The reason for this is because Pro is using this exact same chip (down clocked to 911 MHz) so due to the high volume mass production, that chip can be much less expensive. This benefits AMD as well as PS overall. You also have to take into account that PS doesn't pay AMD $199 for each GPU. PS only requires the chip itself, not everything else that comes on the PCB that makes up the $199 price. PS designs their own PCB for PS consoles, and simply mounts the chip to the board. The cost per GPU chip is much much less than $199. This is the same for MS. They design their own PCB, and just buy the GPU chip from AMD.

A similar situation will most likely happen with Scorpio. MS will probably use one of the Vega GPU's (even if its a cut down version at a lower clock rate) and this will help lower the cost of that specific GPU model for AMD and MS overall. The difference will be in the fact that Vega is not mid-tier, its high end. This will make the lowest, cheapest version of Vega $100 to $200 more than the best Polaris GPU. This is why Scorpio will cost a minimum of $499. At that price MS could potentially break even, maybe. They may have to eat $50 to $100 to get it to a $499 price point though.