I believe for the most part, consoles led the graphics in the late 80s and early 90s. Sure, Doom blew everyone's socks off, but most games on PC looked like dirt. And the console ports weren't that great. This was when dedicated graphics cards weren't popular. Yeah, technically, PCs were still more powerful, but the idea of every game looking better on PC like we have today didn't exist then. For a while, PCs big hits were MUDs, solitaire, and the like.

Talking both from experience and as an avid DF retro viewer. And only talking about the rule, not the exception (compared to now where it's the rule that PC games pretty much always have a better version unless the dev is lazy).

Are there 200m+ Steam accounts? I thought Steam was closer to half that number. 

Kind of absurd to spin it to mean such a big group of people. High End Gaming PCs are a small minority, only have to see the best selling and most played games to see that.

Same could be said for consoles.
Even today a large percentage of consoles sold still cannot guarantee 1080P across every title.

Fact of the matter is... Not everyone cares about resolutions... And that holds true no matter the platform you own.

But by the same token... The PC market is catastrophically massive.
Even if only 2% of PC gamers have something... That's still millions of rigs.

The survey is only done on the machine that the popup asking you to participate in that months survey appears on.

Even in the late 80's the PC had higher resolutions and significantly better sound.

In the early 90's... Whilst consoles were still fumbling around with 320x240... The PC was heading towards 1024x768... A resolution that allot of 7th gen games would hang around.
But once the PC started to enter the 3D Accelerated revolution... It was all over for consoles being able to compete with PC in any aspect.

I think it's important to take both the exception and the rule into consideration when drawing comparisons.

To be fair, I did say "Yeah, technically, PCs were still more powerful, but the idea of every game looking better on PC like we have today didn't exist then."

I am talking about the state of graphics as a whole and how I've heard and read in many places that people feel consoles are holding back graphics in this day and age. Graphics on console are inferior now as evidenced by how much better the PC ports are and how certain exclusives aren't even possible on consoles. This is the norm now. But we can look at the exception and say Horizon or God of War or Uncharted 4 is way better looking and technically superior than Goat Simulator. Looking at the exception wouldn't be accurate, because there's tons of games that have way better graphics than those PS4 games I spoke of (just talking visual fidelity, not art).

When I was a very young kid, it was very rare for a PC game to look stellar and console graphics were typically better even though certain games and certain PCs (yep specific models) were way better than consoles. The popularity of consoles and the graphics that came with them led to a boom in PC gaming. So if anything, in my mind, console graphics have helped push the boundaries, not stagnate that progression. What's held that progression back is adoption of the tech.

Well. That's the real kicker. - There is no guarantee that a rig that isn't high-end will be able to push out visuals better than a console... The PC has never claimed that.
But a few years after you upgrade, you probably are going to be running said games better than the console versions... And for free.

Consoles are holding back graphics. Jaguar has been a massive hindrance on a multitude of fronts.
...And AMD's Graphics Core Next Architecture has stagnated, their highest end parts are mid-range... Let alone the hardware that the consoles have that are a step down from even that.

By the same token... Once the PC is able to run Horizon, God of War or Uncharted 4 (Only a matter of when, not if) it will look better on the PC.

I disagree... Especially during the 8-bit console era, the PC generally had richer sound and more audio samples... And their colour pallets were significantly larger thanks to the more plentiful amounts of memory.

The SNES was a pretty competitive beast all things considered... But by the time it launched the PC had the likes of Duke Nukem, Wing Commander, Commander Keen and more.

 The popularity of consoles and the graphics that came with them led to a boom in PC gaming. So if anything, in my mind, console graphics have helped push the boundaries, not stagnate that progression. What's held that progression back is adoption of the tech.

In the 80s Commodore was the king of sound. At first the SID-chip in the C64 and after that the Paula-chip in the Amigas

Not surprised, it takes a really heavy rig to pull off proper 4k. And by proper 4k, I mean the works, most PC enthusiasts won't simply crank up the resolution and then be satisfied with anything less than ultra on PP effects and lightning/filtering etc. I takes an immense amount of power to play 4k at 60fps+ with proper effects enabled. Thinking about the next gen of consoles supposedly offering real 4k gaming is laughable, it'll be many years before anything remotely resembling a mainstream device will be able to pull of real 4k games and gaming.

I've had two desktops before and no, neither of them had taken any part in the Stream survey. It's not a survey you have to take part in either. 

Ah. I have an LG UK6300. Looks like I got a good TV then.  https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag UK6300 Series

Input lag is not everything. Panel quality is something that you should take into account. 8bit/10bit/12bit per color channel, brightness, backlight technology, Smart TV features, CPU power and more. All of them make the price and depending on your taste, you either go with the one you have chosen or one in a higher price class, if something like HDR and no color banding is a must for you.