Some fucks are beautiful, not this one though.

That PS2 dev kit looks awesome...

Going off of history, PS2 seems to be the only one that didn't just look like a generic box and the final design looks very much like it. I think the same thing will happen here. A slight design difference, and a bit smaller than the devkit.

Although you only had one devkit for MS, Sega and Nintendo I have to say Sony looked prettier (I would buy the PS2 kkkk). The other 3 looks like ugly desktops.

PS3 do look like a very ugly and old VCR copying device.

A 1MFLOP device could potentially outperform a 1TFLOP device. - The 1MFLOP device could have 10x the INT performance.

I like the OG Xbox devkit, nice clean, metal PC case.
The controller needs to burn in a fire though.

The PS2 Devkit definitely looks like it's had the most effort put into it's design though.

I think you are confused with what i wrote. Some believe this is the look of the actual console, and i agree that its not due to its massive size.

In which universe?

Only someone that doesn't know how to read thread title.

Care to point who said with certainty in this thread this is the consumer hw that will be sold?

I am agreeing with the thread that it is a Dev kit. The moment the OG photo released (Black and White) many questioned if the actual PS5 would look like that. Go on social media, the world doesnt revolve around 1 thread on 1 website.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Sure. For specialized tasks and markets like industrial where they need Integer and not floating point capability.

There have been CPU core designs which gave higher preference to integer capability over floating point, which gave them big advantages in scientific or other specialized workloads that rely on integer capability.
AMD's Bulldozer CPU core was such a design where it had two integer units to every floating point unit... It meant that in Integer based tasks it was very competitive with Xeon, but in floating point tasks it was a laughing stock.

And before the 486SX, CPU's didn't do floating point at all, they relied on a separate chip for that, provided they even came with one.

Cyrix M1 had Integer capability that would beat the pants off Intel's Pentium at the time, but fell short in floating point capability to the level of a 486 with a decent co processor, which was fine back then as most tasks relied heavily on Integers anyway.

CPU designs without any floating point capability will often fall back to fixed point arithmetic operations that run on the integer unit anyway, so compatibility is retained even if the performance takes a nose dive.

Intel has some controllers which don't have a floating point unit, like their Quark line.
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/86826/intel-quark-microcontroller-d1000.html

The Vortex86 is another such chip that preferences integer over floating point.

In the GPU space, GPU's tended to use Integer over Floating Point for a very long time until FP32 got cheap enough to implement, in some specialized markets Integer pipelines on GPU's are still used as size and power consumption is more important.

So again, Floating Point is just as useless as using bits in determining a systems capabilities, you neglect everything else that goes into a chip by using just floating point numbers.