No. First off, not all TFs are equal. Basically 6TF on a polaris/vega architecture is very different from 6TF in a navi architecture.

Then there is also the fact that as far as GPU rendering, not all things scale up proportionately. Like next gen cosnoles wouldn't be pushing significantly more triangles than the current gen, not cause they can't but cause they don't need to. So that extra power would be going to other places or areas that the current gen consoles simply cant handle.

And most importantly, next gen CPU and memory will make all the difference.

On the money, 399 is a marketing sweet spot for home consoles.

I feel like the base model will have 4k 30 down pat and smooth, 4k 60fps being achieved in certain games.  The main focus will be more on special effects, enemy AI, physics, etc to enhance the experience (or at least I hope so).  Anything above 4K at this point is asinine to aim for over those other factors IMO.

I mean we already have dynamic 4K with Pro and SOME native 4K with X1X.  Smoothing that out should not be too much of a jump to focus on those other, more important factors with a full generational leap.

Yeah, there's some low poly assets hiding in the rafters of your PS3 games, or deep down in the basement. They had to cut the scene polycounts enough to get the games to run on 250 MB of ram. Same goes with textures in a lot of places. Look at the wooden beams in Dark Souls levels on PS3. They are PS1 level polycount, and PS2 level textures. Look at Sheperd's back armor in ME3 on PS3. It's a pixelated mess. Looks like a JPEG, not even 200 x 200 pixels across. Aside from that though, they are basically the same games as today (Not counting ridiculous tech masterpieces like Witcher 3, GoW, and Horizon). 

I'm not impressed at all by the differences between hardware these days. Even comparing base XB1 to a $3000 PC is 10% as big of an improvement as going from N64 to PS2. 

Hitler and Stalin had one thing in common. Mustaches. Therefore all men with Mustaches must be evil. 

Seriously though... 

I offer you two PC's for $1000. 

One PC is $1000 because it comes signed by me. It actually has $800 worth of hardware in it. 

Another PC is $1000, because it comes with $1100 worth of hardware in it. 

Which will you buy? 

The Playstation 3 had 512Mb of Ram.

Clearly you haven't played a PC game at 15,360x2880 resolution. ;) (Neither have I actually, most was 7680x1440, but still more pixels being pushed than the 4k twins.)

Seems in line with what I have been saying. CPU equivalent to a Ryzen 2700 (X), which is Zen+. GPU equivalent to a Vega 64, with a bunch of Navi cooked in, most likely on 7nm. ~12 Tflops. 16GB-32GB of GDDR6. 1GB-2GB of DDR4 for the OS.

At the latest it will be 2020, but I'm still calling 2019. $399-$449. 100M+ units sold. And hoping for PS1-PS4 B/C, though I'll settle for at least PS1, PS2, and PS4.

Yep, I was on the 2019 team for ps5 release but after jason's article I'm no longer. 2020 is probably the year Sony is aiming for.

Based on this and Eurogamers article this is the specs I believe we see in ps5:

Zen 2 with 8 cores and 16 threads, clocked at 3 ghz.
Navi gpu that has 14 TF.
18 GB ggdr6 with 768 GB/s memory bandwith.
1 TB ssd hard drive.

2020, 499$ launch price. It will be marketed as 4k/60fps machine.

In that article, it stated that early dev kits got out 18-24 months before the PS4 launched. Rumors are that PS5 dev kits got out early this year. If that was in February, then a Nov 2019 launch would be ~21 months. So, nothing in that article disproves a 2019 launch. 

The PS5 will probably release in either Nov. 2020 or Nov. 2021.

However...

Anyone expecting a gigantic graphical leap from the PS4 Pro to the PS5 are going to be disappointed. The days of giant leaps like we got from PS1 to PS2, or PS2 to PS3...are over.

Which is fine by me. Because honestly - having played games Horizon Zero Dawn and Killzone Shadowfall, we as gamers really don't 'need' any more graphical detail. Especially at the expense of longer development wait times, which has SKY ROCKETED over the last 10 years.

In the 90's, AAA games typically 1 to 2 and a half years of development time and on the very rare occasion 3 years. Fast forward to the early 2010's and games average of 5 years of development time, and some took several years depending on the title. Example:

Final Fantasy 6 - year and a half dev time (SNES)
Final Fantasy 7 - two year dev time (PS1)
Final Fantasy 8 - two year dev time (PS1)
Final Fantasy 9 - two year dev time (PS1)
Final Fantasy 10 - two and a half year dev time (PS2)
Final Fantasy 12 - four year dev time (PS2)
Final Fantasy 13 - five year dev time (PS3)

From there Square Enix's business practices become a little muddy and their turn around times take a nose dive become of constant dev team shifts, so I'll stop there. But you get the idea. More detail in games = more waiting time. Which in excess will be BAD for the video game entertainment industry. Just because we CAN add more detail, doesn't mean we should.

The video game industry will collapse if it reaches the average wait time of 10 years. And studios will have nobody to blame but themselves. We've come a long way, it'd be a shame for our favorite hobby to hit a collapse just because we wanted more detail and particle effects.

I really wouldn't use SE as your basis. Really, the average has gone up, but I would imagine it's closer to 3 years, not 5-6.

Edit: Take GOW, for example. It was just in the concept phase in Dec 2014. 3 years and 3 months later, it was finished. Or Uncharted 4. In Nov 2013, it was in early development and they released a teaser trailer. 2 years and 3 months later, it was finished.