While there will always be more power available on pc, price to performance is unmatched at the begining of a new gen. this gen it seems the jump will be a bit bigger that last gen compared to whats available on current pc's. While for people like you who can spend $5k on a pc wont be affected and already have specs twice as good as the consoles will bring, thats not the majority. im sure the majority of pc gamers looking for an upgrade are thinking upgrade just my gpu wich will cost more than the entire console and at most will just match it asuming everything else is up to par, or buy a console for cheaper and be future proof for 2-3 years. 

The 8th gen had GCN derived GPU's which weren't outdated as soon as the consoles launched... Just the PC had a ton more performance on top with the R9 200 series. (Which were still based on the same GCN architectural foundations as the consoles just with a few minor improvements.)

The Xbox 360 used the latest graphics technology... Especially for 2005, the PC by comparison had the x1800 series that same year, but the Xbox 360 introduced technology from the Radeon HD 2000 series which wasn't dropping until 2007. (I.E. Unified Shaders.)

The Playstation 3 by comparison was outdated before it released as nVidia released the Geforce 8000 series where-as the Playstation 3 leveraged Geforce 7000 technology.

The Original Xbox had a Geforce 3/4 Hybrid GPU with a 4:2:8:4 pipeline design. (Geforce 3 had a 4:1:8:4 layout) So it was more capable than the Geforce 3 in vertex operations.

Graphics Core Next was decent back in 2013.

But around 2014 when nVidia dropped nVidia Maxwell... Graphics Core Next was behind significantly in terms of efficiency, AMD tried to brute force it's way forward by pushing for higher memory bandwidths and more compute units... But you can only take that so far.

Even with RDNA... AMD trails nVidia in efficiency. Significantly.
AMD Actually needs a whole process node shrink advantage to match nVidia in terms of efficiency.

Microsoft pretty much destroyed 99% of yours and others "predictions" you agreed with... Completely apart, when they revealed the Xbox Series X as being a 12 Teraflop machine.

You place to much emphasis on rumors, fake news, teraflops and hypotheticals rather than actual evidence and revealed information.

Lol. No.

PC can play all previous generations of games though.
PC games are cheaper.
PC games are scalable across hardware... You don't need to match the consoles specifications (And thus come in at a lower price) to play the same games.

Nintendo did kinda' prove not everyone gives a crap about graphics you know.

The sooner the specs are revealed... The sooner we can finally discard the hardware and teraflop speculation, it's okay to actually say "we don't know".

PC can run multiple graphics chips.

PC has nVidia GPU's and will have RTX 3000 series before next-gen consoles launched... So the Xbox Series X will definitely be a step down from what a high-end PC can achieve.

The base consoles will be several steps down.

Consoles will *never* be able to beat a PC on the hardware/technology from because...

1) PC's have higher TDP headroom.
2) PC's have higher cost headroom which allows for larger chips.
3) PC's have more Ram.
4) PC's are constantly improving every year.
5) Consoles use PC hardware.

The console optimization isn't significant though.
A Radeon 7870 is still going to be able to play the majority of Xbox One and Playstation 4 titles with similar level of visuals, some games it will be better, some games it will be worst... But by and large if you want a Playstation 4 or Xbox One experience on PC... A Radeon 7870 from 2012 will give you that.

If you want to drive visuals up beyond what the consoles offer, you obviously will need something more.

12 Teraflop isn't 10x the power of a Playstation 4, you are placing way to much emphasis on teraflops and not on the systems actual complete performance.

PC already has hardware that will be faster than the un-released Next-Gen consoles.

The actual size of an SSD has no bearing on performance... You can have PCI-E 3.0 SSD's faster than PCI-E 4.0 SSD's.

The i5 8400 came out in 2017... And it was average even on it's release.

Correct. nVidia has the nVidia tax... When you have the best technology, you can charge extra for that.

12nm is based on a refined 16nm process which in turn was based upon a 20nm process... It's a false narrative when you assert that when something is built on a larger, older, 12nm process that it will somehow be more expensive, the reverse is often true.

Often an older process will be cheaper than the latest process due to less patterning, process maturity and so forth... For example AMD was using 12nm for it's I/O chip on the latest 7nm Ryzen processors... Why? Because it was cheaper... Where-as the CPU cores benefit greatly from the move to 7nm as the geometry scales well... And AMD can take advantage of higher clockrates.

It will be even more fun to see how this years nVidia RTX 7nm GPU's against the 7nm consoles.
nVidia has been a generation ahead of AMD since Maxwell, so RDNA 2 and RTX 3000 series will prove interesting.

The PC's requirement for an SSD is lesser than a console... The PC has more Ram.

Generally most PC's have an SSD for the OS anyway, even if people keep their games on mechanical storage... So swap space is still on the SSD which can assist with memory transactions.

Plus... We don't know if consoles will be 100% Solid state and not take a hybrid approach and use a mechanical disk for mass storage, don't count all your ducks in a row just yet.

Yes PC requirements will go up next-gen. Hopefully it might mean I can ditch the 2007~ era PC that has played most 8th gen games just fine, getting a little ridiculous.

You place to much emphasis on leaks and rumors.
Flops is irrelevant.

Next-generation consoles will be using AMD's first generation of Ray Tracing... It's a bit of a false narrative to assume it will enable new gameplay mechanics when we have absolutely no idea of it's capabilities...

For all we know RDNA 2's Ray Tracing capability will be worse than the RTX 2060.

Older GPU's with no Ray Tracing cores are also still capable of doing Ray Tracing, they will just offer less performance, Ray Tracing is a compute issue at the end of the day.

Who is "we"? What does RDNA RT do (or not do, according to you) to be less capable than RTX2060 ? Tell us more (you do know what NVidia's curent RT solution actually does, don't you? Otherwise your statement would be rather empty).

The point I am trying to convey... Which seems to have eluded you is... We just don't have any information to assert anything.

How many open world and gaas games can it run?

Yes it's possible that Oberon is just all Backwards compatilibity stuff and nothing else, we haft to w8 and see.

? My latest prediction I made 2 months ago had XsX at 12TF and been the same for a while. I had it pretty much at 12TF the entire 2019 except dropped it after navi release for a time as 12TF looked impossible. Also had memory bandwidth at 560 GB/s which github confirmed. Even predicted all 3 consoles would be 1TB NVMe drive already in jan 2019.

It's the PS5 TF number that can't be nail down. We have the github leak at 9.2TF but this could just be BC boost mode for PS4. My list suggests that most insiders think PS5 is at ~11tf.

Then we have the insider klee claiming he has seen the spec sheet for both consoles and PS5 is above 12TF even has a slight edge over XsX. This could be correct as Jason Schreier says both console is above geforce 2080 and is very close to eachother. The PS5 devkit which I do think have 576 GB/s memory bandwidth would also suggest PS5 having a slight edge as you try match TF with enough memory speed. But this is with a 256-bit bus which just doesn't seems realistic for retail PS5.

So you can just pick a random number and hope you got it right.

I meant catching up in the sense that the average pc gamers has equal or better specs than what's in these new consoles. With the ps4/Xone that happened pretty quickly as common pc's already had a better cpu than the Jaguar. People who were still using older gpu's could just get a GTX660 for around $100 or buy the GTX760 which launched for $199. The same thing will happen next gen, but I do think Sony and MS did a much better job with the price-to-performance this time around. I mean the "mainstream" RTX 2060 Super is still between $400 and $500 where I live, let alone a RTX2080.

I really disagree with that. Steam surveys alone will deny that.

But anyways, that dosent contradict what im saying, if they are looking for superior experience, everyone has a cost limit and even if they are withing that cost limit they have to ask if its worth it. Like I said before, to some they would need to spend more on just the gpu alone just to match the consoles gpu assuming everything else is up to par. While yes, price to performance is always favored to the consoles, at the beginning of the gen is when its at its peak and thats when im saying some pc gamers would probably main on consoles for at least 2 years. 

Well i dont think all the applause should go to sony and MS, its mostly nvidia who decided to overprice their rtx line up. It was the bigest jump in price in any geforce launch with the  lowest performance increase. they bet to much on rtx and they where the performance king so they thought on charging what ever they want. Thats what no competition and extreme greed does to a company.