PS consoles seem to make opposite jumps each gen. Like PS1 had a great CPU and decent GPU. PS2 had a decent CPU and great GPU. PS3 had a great CPU and decent GPU. PS4 (Pro) had a decent CPU and great GPU. (This is taking into account whats to be expected from console hardware and price at launch).

We can assume from this, that PS5 will have a great CPU and decent GPU. Assuming AMD Ryzen CPU, plus whatever Radeon GPU tech is available/affordable at that time, it's likely this will be the case. You also have to forget about the Pro if your going to talk about gens, in which case, next gen should still be a similar leap from base PS4 to PS5. Maybe not quite the same leap as gens prior, do to diminishing returns over time.

The PS2 to PS3 transition really screws up this kind of comparison, because the PS3 was a $600 console at launch, yet cost waaay more than that to make. It should have been $800 truthfully. Now, if the PS3 was only around $400 at launch, its specs would have been much lower and in line with past console transitions, and wouldn't have been near as large of a leap over the PS2, making the PS3 to PS4 jump larger than it actually was.

It also depends a lot on how long PS wants to ride the PS4 wave. My guess based on the past and current trajectory, as long as possible. A 2019 PS5 would likely come up a little short or be a little expensive. A 2020 PS5 should be close and just the right price. A 2021 PS5 should hit all targets no problem.

The future will be iterations of some sort. Expecting a 20Tflop PS5 for $400 around will never ever happen. The PS3 was a pipe dream and never should have happened the way it did. We could always potentially see a 20Tflop PS5 model, but it would cost you near $1000 around 2019. With how bad the PS3 launch went, you can safely assume that's just another pipe dream though.

I think the big part of what you are missing with all that is... *drum roll* zoom.
Textures are mapped to a 3D object and is thus not mapped 1:1 with the pixels on screen.

What that means is you could have an 8k texture covering a wall, you could walk up to said wall and stare straight at it.
You would then only be seeing a tiny fraction of that entire wall and not 8k worth of texture detail.

There is a reason why 8k texture packs exist for games like Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout 4 etc'.
And why people see a difference over 2k/4k texture packs, Even when the majority of displays are only 1080P.

I wouldn't say the PS2 had a "great" GPU or the Playstation 3 having a "great" CPU.

But it's all relative I guess.

I made some bold predictions about ps5 in two previous threads. So I'm not gonna post them here. But basically I expect Nvidia GPU as Amd is just not that competitive in gaming any longer and falling further behind Nvidia. But I will change my prediction based on new information we get about Navi and Gpu from Nvidia.

I see people posting about 16gb ram ggdr6 is to low for next gen. I believe this is a good number. Just look at Crysis 3, this game uses about 2 gb of ram.
I finished this game recently and was amazed that this game still has world greatest graphic. Beat all the games except maybe Battlefield 1 and battlefront but we don't count them as I believe they uses fake graphic. (They take real-life picture of stuff and post them in the game to get better graphics)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWvgETOo5ek Great trailer showing crysis 3 graphics. Note the resolution is 720p so you won't get a crisp picture.

About teraflops if Sony chooses AMD again. It will most likely be about 8-9 teraflops some people think this is low, but this is what we can expect. About 2x from ps4 pro, twice the gpu cores and slightly higher clocked.
Think about this, Fury X (amd best gpu 2015) still hasen't been beated. It has 8,6 teraflops on 28 nm. Xbox X won't beat it despite being released 2,5 years later. Now we expect ps5 to beat vega? Amds best card, nope not gonna happen.

About release date. Between 2019 and 2020 is the time. Everything is lining up there. GDDR6, 7 nm and Ryzen cpu.
So we expect in that time frame :)

Which is why I mentioned before ...  

But it's as you say, the texels are not mapped to screen space and instead mapped to the geometry itself which causes undersampling and oversampling as described ... 

Storing higher resolution textures is not an elegant solution because of memory and bandwidth consumption. We badly need procedural textures since growth in compute power is far out pacing growth in bandwidth ... 

I really hope the world doesn't end before 2021

Those texture issues that are described in that PDF have always occured to various extents and have thus generally always required filtering and work arounds.

But it doesn't change the fact that higher resolution textures do have an an advantage even when they greatly exceed the screen resolution due to distance and size of surfaces.
You should install a 4k texture pack to Skyrim and compare that to Skyrim with a HD texture pack... With the screen resolution set to 720P.
The 4k textures will win every single time. Every damn time.

Besides, not all surfaces are the same size either.
Megatexturing used in say... Rage would have benefitted from 8k textures even at low display resolutions... Because that texture is spread over a significant area of the game world.

As for Memory and Bandwidth, well. This is why technologies like Delta Colour Compression, Texture Compression, Normal Map Compression, lightmap and shadowmap compression, Culling and so on... Exist and continue to be improved upon.

Plus GPU's are coming with 8GB of video memory in the mid-range these days, not many games are pushing that.

Megatexturing or Partially Resident Textures is the interim goal.

The Megatexturing in Rage could have had a massive single texture that is like 32,000 x 32,000 resolution, but then the engine could cut that texture up and only load it in chunks that are visible to the player.

And using compression... Meant it was extremely memory and bandwidth friendly as the chunks could be streamed off the drive directly into memory on a per-needs basis, but it was CPU intensive, I think starting with the Radeon 7000 series, AMD had support for PRT in hardware.

No offense, but those specs for a hypotetical PS5 are bullshit

1. 15 TFlops will be very hard to cool in a console, even in 7nm. But more to the point is the size of the necessary Graphics chip, which even in 7nm would be quite a lot bigger than the ones in PS4 Pro and XOX. This would make it very expensive to produce - too expensive for a console.

2. 28 GB is in Computer terms a very odd number and would need a very wierd connection (like 224bit compared to the more even 192bit or 256bit). Additionally this would be very expensive even if the RAM prices would normalize again. Finally, it's just too much for a console, 16Gbyte it will most probably be, possibly 24 if we're really lucky, but not 28.

3. Ryzen 12core (and probably 24 threads) are way too much. Most game engines can't handle more than 4 threads efficiently, 6-8 threads is the limit. The problem is not that there's no wish to use more threads, but to actually being able to parallelise the workload enough to fill them all. Also, again, too big of a chip for a console, half of it would be much better.

The problem stems from willing to compare Desktop PC hardware to console hardware. But since Consoles are much more limited in cooling, consumption, part size and price range, it's actually much closer to look at the mobile market, more specifically gaming laptops, especially those considered desktop replacements.

Just for comparision, the PS4 Graphics part has 1.8 TFlops. At the same time the 7970M was out for gaming Laptops and had 2.1 TFlops. PS4 Pro: 4.2 TFlops, R9 395M: 3.7 TFlops (the RX 485M is clocked much lower (almost 200Mhz)  than it's predecessor to limit consumption and thus actually has less power, would it have had the same clock speed it would have been more or less as fast as the Pro)

I definitely agree with 2 and 3. The PS5 is more than likely to get 16GB of GDDR6 RAM, with possibly 1-2 GB of DDR3/4 dedicated to the OS.  And I'm thinking Sony will go with a 8 core Ryzen APU.  That's going to be a big leap over the Jaguar, and probably help them achieve B/C with the PS4 much easier.  

Where I disagree is 1.  While I believe 12-12.5 Tflops is more likely, 15 isn't out of the question.  I think the purpose of the Pro was twofold.  One was to take advantage of a budding 4K market.  But, the 2nd one was to allow their engineers to experiment in making a console that needed better cooling and had a larger power draw.  I think they are more than capable of putting a 12 Tflops, and even a 15Tflops, GPU in something the size of the Pro.

Higher resolution textures do have an advantage but there would be less need for them if we had a good LOD system or texture stitching system in place ... 

DCC only helps wih framebuffer compression. You can compress normal maps with texture compression. Lightmaps are a bad idea going into the future of global illumination and shadow map compression is not a realistic idea ... 

Both are currently bad ideas ... 

With megatextures you you have to manually do texture filtering in the pixel shader and that can get expensive if you include aniotropic filtering and with PRTs you're stalling a lot ... 

I get what your saying. I didn't want to get too technical (Cell SPU/SPE, AMD APU etc) or complicate things by using different words like amazing, awesome, great, good, decent, ok, etc. I just picked great and decent and rolled with it for all gens, just to make the point clearly without writing a novel about each console. That's why I also made the point about launch hardware and price, not just comparing all consoles directly, but also taking into account the hardware and where it sat in terms of overall computing performance at its time of launch, to meet its necessary sales price. It's not that simple, I know, I just tried to make it as simple as possible. Much easier said than done.