The 8th gen had GCN derived GPU's which weren't outdated as soon as the consoles launched...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The Playstation 3 by comparison was outdated before it released as nVidia released the Geforce 8000 series where-as the Playstation 3 leveraged Geforce 7000 technology.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.

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.

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.

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.

Steam surveys are a slice of info. So many people are not counted on there (Pem and I continue to state this). 

Still, my point remains untouched and what he said, before he clarified, was false.

There's no 'case to hurt'. I already proved the inaccuracies in his statement. You can babble about Steam surveys or whatever else, but it changes nothing.

I don't know what you mean, are you saying pc requirements will be the same as they're now when next gen games come out? 

Basically yes.

They're minimum requirements and they don't change a lot. Why? Because PC games, including ports from console games, have the magical ability of having a graphics options menu. Which means any PC game can be toned down a lot depending on the user's needs. For example you will not see an SSD as a minimum requirement for any game, not even at the end of next gen. Here is a great example:

https://www.techspot.com/news/82281-call-duty-modern-warfare-system-requirements-revealed.html

This is the latest COD game. We are at the end of the current console generation and every console has had 8 full CPU cores. Now look at those recommendations. The minimum required is a 2C/4T CPU with an operating system that predates the current gen. It also names an 8 year old GPU that predates current gen. And even though it says minimum requirement, those things are just suggestions and you will be able to run the game with even lower end and older hardware.

Now let's have a look at the recommended specs. Here we see an 8 year old CPU with 4 cores. The GPU is only 5 years old now. That is the recommendation, it doesn't say anything about what kind of performance you can expect from it. I'm gonna assume 1080p/30fps.

This is just one example, requirements vary a lot between games and they climb steadily at a slow pace continually, not just whenever a new console comes out. The next console gen won't be any different. Consoles have about as little of an affect on those specs as the yearly updates of graphics cards. Once the consoles come out they will already be comfortably below the current high end gaming PCs and PC games will still be able to be played with bottom shelf hardware. That's the great thing about PCs, you can basically play every game on as low or high settings as you want. That's why those minimum and even the recommended specs requirements are so low.

When the new consoles come out and new gen games hit the PC market you will see the same low CPU core counts, slow HDDs and year old graphics cards on there. They might give high end hardware a run for their money for ultra settings but nothing like that will be necessary to run and enjoy those games on PC.

The things you are imagining with high powered consoles and developers who know what to do with high power is a utopic scenario many PC players wish would happen but it never really will because consoles will continue to be the lowest common denominator we will have to stick to. I mean PC gamers have been begging for games to be more optimized on more than 4 CPU cores even before the current gen came out and despite having a console lineup of 8 core machines we're still waiting on that.

 We just don't have any information to assert anything.

? 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.

Guys if anyone is interested these should be the specs on next-gen console, they are based open verified insider information, leaked benchmarks and info from sony/Microsoft.

PS5: Zen2 CPU, 8 core/16 threads 3,2ghz, GPU 10,1TF (44CU, 1,8ghz), 16GB gddr6 VRAM 256-bit bus, 512-576 GB/s memory bandwidth (12+GB VRAM available for games), 1TB SSD.

XBOX Scarlet: Zen2 CPU, 8 core/16 threads 3,2ghz, GPU 10,1TF (44CU, 1,8ghz), 14GB gddr6 VRAM 320-bit bus, 560 GB/s memory bandwidth (10GB VRAM available for games), 1TB SSD.

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. 

Yes, it will be interesting to see how RDNA 2's RT compares to Nvidia's RTX cards. We will see, but if they somehow managed to make RT a lot less expensive on performance, I do see full RT becoming the standard next gen. I'm also pretty sure it will be the same thing with SSD as adding an extra HDD would defeat the whole purpose of having it on consoles. Storage will probably be an issue but that's always been that way on consoles, unless you buy an external disk. Didn't the first ps4's launch with a 250gb HDD? But oh well, at least next gen you'll be able to install only parts of a game so save up space.

You clearly wrote that "we know RDNA RT is less capable than RTX2060". That sounds like an assertion to me.

You clearly wrote that "we know RDNA RT is less capable than RTX2060". That sounds like an assertion to me.

Of course it's overpriced for it's performance.

I'll edit the argument a bit.

RTX 2080ti is 13.45Tfops, RX Vega 64 is 12.66Tflops, less than 1 tflop difference, yet it isn't as good performance wise as an RTX 2060 which is 7.2 Tflops.

So there we have an example of an AMD GPU Having 12 and a half Tflops, yet can barely keep up with a 7.2 Tflop, Nvidia chip.