This point should be stressed more, and it was a big question I wanted to ask the ones who have better understanding than me on the topic : Scalability.  

 Let's take XBox One base model and XBox One X as examples.    The biggest difference between the two is the GPU and Ram. The CPUs are quiet similar, not a big difference, apart from some optimizations and clock speed.   So what do we have in the end ?  The "core" of the game is the same, they play "exactly" the same(mechanics), also physics, AI, animations, system collision are the same.  The graphics, IQ and frame rate on the other hand see the biggest jump from the base model to X model, almost night and day.  So, basicly,   when 2 SKUs have similar CPU performance and dramatic differences in GPU and memory speed, Scalability is mostly in the graphics/IQ/frame rate department right ? Now, what if 2 SKUs have also a dramatic difference in CPU performance? How scalability can work in areas such as physics, animations, system collision, interactions with the environment, AI and game-play mechanics ? How much more complex is "scalability" in those areas ?  Can this be taken into account by the developers, is it feasible, or too complex and costy for the majority of developers ?

 In few words, it is a waste to have 2 SKUs with dramatic differences in CPU/GPU and RAM, or Devs might really take advantage of the more powerful SKU with the right development Kit and advanced scalability ?

 Any thoughts ?

Jaguar was AMDs old low power CPU architecture and were one of the first APUs to come with integrated GCN graphics. Even a down clocked FX 8100 is too powerful in comparison to Jaguar based mobile CPU, Jaguar 8 core is no where near to a Bulldozer 8 cores designed for high performance desktop @1.6.  At best a laptop with 7850m specs is a far better comparison and its no where near what PS4 does with same specd APU. 

Oh I know, I discussed this with someone, and who ever thinks the grunt will be better than around that level has their heads in the clouds. We already know it's Navi 10 Lite, a 150W TDP chip, consoles will be lucky to have Vega 56 performance. Navi = Vega with 20-30% lower TDP with higher frequencies, I would say 8TF at best in PS5. Next gen will not be a giant leap, expect more mid gen upgrades.

GoW and Detroit are for very different demographics, just see the 3x (or more) sales difference between them. Sure a lot of us bought the 2 and could have a little more spacing between them, but that isn't a big issue. Although on launch it is good to have space.

Next gen with power near X1X is kinda pointless.

Generally speaking, in PC games you usually have around 3x diifference in GPU workload between lowest and highest settings at the same resolution - at least it used to be like that, i haven't been doing that sort of test for quite a while.

That's because the 7850M ain't a lower clocked 7850, but a much lower clocked 7770 (by over 200Mhz lower), thus only having half the CU and much less clock speed. So no wonder this chip can't even come near what a PS4 can do. It also only consumes 40W, while the GPU part in the PS4 APU should easily consume 3 times as much.

Oh, and Bulldozer is clock for clock actually really just faster than the Jaguar in Integer operations, as the FPU has to be shared between 2 cores. And games make massive use of the FPU, thus relativising the advantage in gaming for the Bulldozer. This is also the reason why it's performance was so bad compared to Intel in every single gaming bench. AMD banked upon GPU getting more GPGPU usage and thus take over most need for an FPU in the CPU and upon further parallelisation of threads (later FX were also expected to increase the core count, but AMD scrapped those plans when this didn't happen and concentrated on the APUs). I could have given a lower clock speed, though, something between 2 and 2.5Ghz for instance - but that wouldn't have changed much.

With all that said, both Perm and I came with about 50% more powerful hardware, as consoles can take more out of given hardware - but that was much more true in the past than it is nowadays

Visually, the games will not look much better on next gen hardware compared to the mid-gen upgrades. That's not just due to the small gap in performance, but also diminishing returns; the more performance you have, the more performance you need to spend for a discernible difference. However, bigger RAM will go a quite some way here, as it allows for much better textures.

On the other hand, a Ryzen based CPU part will run circles around the old Jaguar CPU part, which means less code needs to be taken over by the GPU to run at an acceptable speed (which is why early this gen everything was just 30FPS; the CPU just couldn't give more), thus having more ressources for itself.

But I agree with the sentiment, and I'm sure you're not gonna be alone with that. I already predicted about 2 years ago that the next gen will have a slow start due to this, as there's simply not enough time to get enough visual distance between themselves and the Pro/X mid-gen upgrade consoles. As a result, I fear both Sony and Microsoft possibly shot themselves in the foot with the upgrades, as they are leeching sales from their still unreleased successors. Or do you think anybody who bought a Pro/X now will buy a PS5/Xbox next anytime soon? Probably not too many, even moreso with Gamestop faltering, making trade-in potentially much more difficult by that time.

I didn't mention anything about an APU or CPU.
But even a shitty AMD FX 6300 could probably do it.

Fact is... On the GPU side of the equation, you do not need twice the GPU performance to match a PS4.

From my own comparison's donkeys years ago on this very forum (With evidence mind you, feel free to do a search for it...) the 8x 1.6ghz Jaguar Cores fell roughly in-line with a Dual-Core Core i3 Haswell running at 3ghz in total relative performance if all threads are leveraged.

At the moment though, not even my Xbox One X is doing graphics that my old Radeon RX 580 can't do... Let alone twice as good, so my point still stands... And I can compare them side by side!

...And at the end of the day, the PC gets optimizations as well, AMD and nVidia are constantly releasing new drivers which boosts performance... Microsoft is constantly releasing OS patches... And we now have more efficient API's (Vulkan and Direct X 12) which erodes the real-world performance differentials between console's low-level API's and the PC.

The Radeon 7850M is not a desktop Radeon 7850M.

I agree.   I'm confident the combination CPU/GPU/RAM of Anaconda and PS5 will be a significant jump over X and PRO.

Lol, exactly. And there's really only two hard dates for a realistic launch. Late 2019 or 2020. So, you got a 50/50 shot there.

Yasuda-san should change his name to Captain Obvious.