We can't be sure, but considering the sales only dropped after X1X there isn't any strong showing that either PS4Pro or X1X improved sales of base model (the bump we saw with X1X was mostly due to a drop caused by it when they announced so much earlier and then near launch they announced a price reduction for X1S a to early as well).

Sure X1 have its issue, PS4 does as well. But the point was that PS3 got a lot more hurdle to overcome and was still able to do it.

Sure the point is for nextgen, but we were talking about affordability as well, so we would need someone that wants a new machine, that is nextgen (and won't bother with MS saying that their games will keep being crossgen so X1 would still suffice for him) and also the cheapest one without caring that the performance is much lower with lets say 1080p instead of 4k for a mere 100USD difference. I don't really think that is such an expressive number.

Most people I know and news we have was that people bought it because of motion controls. Such evidence is present that for the first 2 years or so people were paying a lot above MSRP to buy one.

I'm a very conservative person, so for me to go against what we have historically seem on console sales I would need hard evidence instead of speculation for a future state that would be very different from what already happened but without much difference in the situation being present so don't fell bad if I don't agree with you =p

Engines are simply scalable, that is all there is to it, that doesn't change when new console hardware comes out with new hardware features that gets baked into new game engines.

You can turn effects down/off, you can use different (less demanding) effects in place of more demanding ones and more, which is why we can take a game like Doom, The Witcher 3, Overwatch, Wolfenstein 2 which scales from high-end PC CPU's, right down to the Switch... A game like the Witcher 3 still fundamentally plays the same as the PC variant despite the catastrophic divide in CPU capabilities.

Scaling a game from 3 CPU cores @ 1ghz on the Switch to 6 CPU cores at 1.6Ghz on the Playstation 4 to 8+ CPU cores @3.4Ghz on the PC just proves that.

The Switch was certainly not the baseline for those titles, the Switch didn't even exist when those games were being developed, yet a big open world game like the Witcher 3 plays great, game design didn't suffer.

I mean, I get what you are saying, developers do try and build a game to a specific hardware set, but that doesn't mean you cannot scale a game downwards or upwards after the fact.

At the end of the day, things like Ray Tracing can simply be turned off, you can reduce geometric complexity in scenes by playing around with Tessellation factors and more and thus scale across different hardware.

You have misconstrued my statements.

The Single Precision Floating Point numbers being propagated around are NOT including the Ray Tracing capabilities of the part, because the FLOPS are a function of Clockrate multiplied by functional CUDA/RDNA/GCN shader units multiplied by number of instructions per clock. - It excludes absolutely everything else, that includes Ray Tracing capabilities.

You can have identical flops with identical chips and still have half the gaming performance.

Thus flops are certainly irrelevant as it doesn't account for the capabilities of the entire chip.

Even overclocked the Geforce 1030 DDR4 cannot beat the GDDR5 variant, they are the EXACT same chip, roughly the same flops.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3330-gt-1030-ddr4-vs-gt-1030-gddr5-benchmark-worst-graphics-card-2018

nVidia's Ray Tracing on the 2080Ti is not the same as RDNA2's Ray Tracing coming out next year, the same technology that next-gen consoles are going to leverage, so it's best not to compare.

Plus, developers are still coming to terms on how to more effectively implement Ray Tracing, it is certainly a technology that is a big deal.

Well. They are irrelevant, it's a theoretical number, not a real world one, the relevant "Flop number" would be one that is based on actual, real-world capabilities that the chips can actually achieve.

And like the Geforce 1030 example above, you can have identical/more flops, but because of other compromises, you end up with significantly less performance.

The Switch we know exactly what it's capabilities are because Nintendo are using off-the-shelf Tegra components, we know what clockspeed and how many functional units it has as well thanks to Homebrew efforts that cracked the console open.

The WiiU is still a big unknown because it was a semi-custom chip, we do know it's an AMD Based VLIW GPU with an IBM PowerPC CPU though.

And exactly, you can't claim 4 different rumors as all being true.

False.
Otherwise the Radeon RX5500 XT with it's 8.6-10.1 Teraflops of power would have been able to decisively beat the Radeon RX 590 with it's 6.7-7.1 Teraflops of power.

Plus you are asserting that Navi's Teraflops are 1.4x better than GCN's meaning the RX 5500 should be the equivalent of 9.38-9.94 Teraflops of the Radeon RX 590, which should see the Radeon RX 5500 XT with a significant performance advantage over the RX 590 and we know THAT didn't happen.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15206/the-amd-radeon-rx-5500-xt-review

This is why using your flops metrics is an absolute joke, it's absolutely useless.

I agree using pure teraflop metrix is false, but if you have other GPU that prove the other way around then it can be used as benchmark as well, RX 5500 is bad GPU example. You can use RX 5700 or 5700 Xt as example tho. 

You can check this video tho

The TFlops you're quoting are at peak boost performance, which the GPU can't hold without consuming much more than those values you're posting below. For instance, in the Techpowerup test the GPU only reached 1672 Mhz on average, which results into almost exactly 7.7 TFlops. Undervolting will simply not be enough to get to 10 TFlops, especially since 160W is already the maximum a console can take. And Navi translates that into more clock speed anyway by itself unless you lock the speed - but that only gives like 30-40 Mhz in general while it would need more like 200-300 Mhz to make it work for your example.

However, I agree that I did mess up a bit, I took consumption at max boost and used the TFlops at base clock. Still, my point stands that 10 TFlops are still out of reach

Maybe you were correct after all, but you might be missing a few things, we know Amd Zen3 and Rdna2 will use 7nm+. What does 7nm+ actually mean though? This is a term Amd uses and not TSMC, everyone assumes it means 7nm EUV including me a few days ago. The terms Tsmc uses are:

N7, N7+ and N7P

N7 + Navi/RDNA1 = 1.7Ghz

N7P + RDNA2 =

PS5 retail will have 40CU's but 4 will be disable, 36CU's + 2ghz = 9.2TF

Xbox Series X will have 56CU's but 8 disable, 48CU's + 2ghz = 12TF

Everyone seems to think PS5 will be above 10TF and maybe even beat Xbox Series X, they will be in for a chock. This is my guess.

No. You can't. It's inaccurate... Which my Radeon RX 5500 example proves without a doubt.
Not only is the Radeon RX 5500 a newer and more efficient architecture... It also has more flops than the Radeon RX 590. - Yet cannot decisively out benchmark it.

Ergo. Flops is useless.

I know that everyone is caught up in this FLOPs talk, but what about Ray Tracing Cores?

Lets say in theory, Micrsoft and Sony both set out to make a 400mm2 APU. Now it is all about finding a balance between CPU Cores, GPU Cores, Ray Tracing Cores, Cache, Memory Controllers, and such. We can theorize that GPU Cores should be equal in size with both using RDNA and likely the same fab. So if Sony is dropping 40CU's on its chip and Microsoft is dropping 56CU's on their chip, then that means that Sony potentially has a sizable amount of chip left for something else. If we again consider RT Cores to be equal, then it could be possible for the PS5 to have say 36RT Cores while XSX has 20RT Cores. 

We are entering a new era with new technologies. I think we have to consider much more when thinking about these chips than just traditinal cores and clock speeds. One chip could be incredibly capable in traditional rendering, but suffer in RT rednering, while another could be less capable in tradtional rendering, but be incredibly capable in RT rendering. At the end it could mean that the chip with weaker traditional silicone and stronger RT silicone ends up supirior in overall next gen graphics capabilities. Or, the two strenghths and weaknesses could balance them out. Or, the chip with more traditional cores, could just end up better.

There are just too many factors to focus so much on FLOPs and CU's. 

False.
Otherwise the Radeon RX5500 XT with it's 8.6-10.1 Teraflops of power would have been able to decisively beat the Radeon RX 590 with it's 6.7-7.1 Teraflops of power.

Plus you are asserting that Navi's Teraflops are 1.4x better than GCN's meaning the RX 5500 should be the equivalent of 9.38-9.94 Teraflops of the Radeon RX 590, which should see the Radeon RX 5500 XT with a significant performance advantage over the RX 590 and we know THAT didn't happen.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15206/the-amd-radeon-rx-5500-xt-review

This is why using your flops metrics is an absolute joke, it's absolutely useless.