You say you are a pc gamer, yet still don't understand lots of things.

Legacy software is run by using the new routines based on cycles(mhz) to match the older hardware. When the legacy software is incompatible or unstable it just doesn't work. It is the sole reason modern CPUs can be 10 times more powerful yet they run old software like crap. You need to equalize processing cycles to achieve true legacy interpretation. And not just the cycles, the instructions sets and features, all of them interpreted for a true legacy solution. Having multi-core and multi-threads processing helps, but is has been the sole reason for the difficulties in building an emulation profiles to run 360 games in xbox one. They needed to alter game routines in order to run them on a lesser cycle based processor, and test them on a one by one basis, it is a very time consuming, effort. As a PC gamer you should know that, VERY WELL.

You don't understand hardware my friend.

Gpu architecture design is dependent on patents, rights and other things. Microsoft needed a solution to survive their 2nd generation hardware because they failed with the OG xbox, and then designed the 360 to emulate Xbox games by brute force performance and commands interpretations, not legacy. In ATI's favor (now AMD if you didn't know) xbox og gpu was a just a modified geforce 3 card. Microsoft NT based OS for the OG xbox essentially converted all of the games for it into simple directX based routines (hence the X-box dumbass). ATI managed to assimilate lots of the routines, but not all of them. It is the same problems and issues when using and building emulators. You use a different and superior CPU to emulate a lesser CPU, but since processing cycles dominate half of the performance issues you need a faster (in cycles) processor and a better one (in architecture).  Just try comparing and airplane vs cargo ship.  A cargo ship has more capacity while the airplane has less, but one carries it's cargo faster. Old games were built with those differences in mind. Another issue is excessive performance , just take the ps2 for example. It doesn't like to read games from a hard drive, because it is just too fast compared to the optical drive. Lots of PS2 games were built using the native ps2 cd drive reading speed, so when you load games using a hard drive, most of them crash if you don't toggle the options to cap the transfer rate. Try reading about emulation, and backwards compatibility. Is just common sense.

Publisher rights for backwards compatibility is an issue from this generation, not older ones. This makes you a kid, by not knowing that. Not having your game running on the newer console back then (~2000-2008) was seen a failure for not reaching the entire gaming market, so most publishers were very supportive and some were forced (business wise) to help Sony and Microsoft, by having their games running in BC mode. PS3 sales failure at the beginning of the last generation (2006-2008) forced them to abandon BC and old game sales collapsed somehow, and the monetization scheme for BC changed into the "buy again" model this generation, mostly in Sony's side, while Microsoft absorbed their implementation. Essentially you buy the same game you have, but with a custom made profile to run in the newer console. Other options as porting and remastering were used. Being the latter the better approach for that kind compatibility.

For true backwards compatibility you need either a previous generation console CPU/GPU chip embedded along side the new console architecture or a legacy approach using a software interpreter, that can translate command by command. An interpreters is what was used for ps1 BC in the PS2 and PS3. The code is already built no need to re-invent the wheel. The same is for the PS2 up to an extent. But PS3 is massive and complicated system that needs lots of brute force processing. BC compatibility could have been announced for ps1/ps2 games without any issues, even the ps4 have a built in ps2 emulator that they use for the ps2 classics, and a game by game basis.

For a 4K gaming machine it will work great, but not for what we hoped for. This is almost a Slim ps5 solution not a robust one console. And until they finally launch the console, i will be hesitant about it because it simply doesn't make any sense. Sony built the PS5 for a 399 price point. Whether they lose some money or not by launch is another thing. But that is the reality of it. For a true PS4 successor Sony needed a machine in the same range or over Xbox SX.  I hate to see resources and money spent over an audio chip that no matter how great can be, it wil not change a bit how games are played. Audio immersion is so much diluted in gaming and diversified, that by the time PS5 arrives a gunshot, a punch, a crash, a scream will sound the same as in the xbox Sx, due to the use of the same crappy TV speakers everyone uses. 4K Gaming is about 4K not audio. That was a misfire from Cerny and Love the man but, hes out of his zone already.

Cerny was the underdog and lost, that was my point. He needed to counter act Microsoft approach and recent news of the new generation console but by simply stating teraflops aren't equal and not being relevant just undermined his own credibility. Is the same failed PS4 pro tactic as when he tried to prove that checkerboard rendering was in equal quality as native 4k rendering.

And as a PC gamer you should know very well that a teraflops is a theoretical performance measurement of Fp16/32 integers based on an specific hardware architecture, and will never be the same is given architecture changes. How THE HELL YOU DON'T KNOW THIS.? You need to study and fast.

True teraflops don't mean a bit if hardware architecture is different, but both console already announced they will use the same RDNA 2 architecture, just different configurations (CU's and clock). Any other difference would be less tangible.

Don' t get me wrong I LOVE Sony, but since the PS4 Pro, I'm hesitant to buy anything because of the approach Sony is using since then. But loving a brand involves criticism and not blindness.

Period.

I recommend you to read/watch about what is

- Legacy software

- Emulation / Interpreters

- Fp16/32 integers calculation and benchmarking

- Backwards compatibility PS1/PS2/OG XBOX

- History of Game Consoles

- PC hardware (CPU, GPU, Memory)

you get it.

**As a side note...I don't know why Sony (Microsoft too) doesn't just let people decide what content they want. They can use their generic emulators(ps2/ps1) with the respective compatibles games. An option for developers is to charge a premium for advanced solutions like internal resolution scaling or a higher resolution texture packs. There are options. Crowdfunding a title so it can be compatible or establishing funding goals to achieve compatibility options. There are lots of ideas and ways that can benefit users and developers alike. Imagine if you had the first Gran Turismo for PSX, with the options to be internally rendered at 4k with 4k textures, texture filters and AA options, all of it for just $1.99/2.99. If you don't pay then you run the game exactly as the ps1 the vanilla version. These features normally are just options in the emulation profile and it doesn't involve lots of money or time. Lets say 100,000 people buy the upgraded option, surely it will pay for the efforts and revitalizes monetization of old games versus full remasters. Leaving the user that bough the upgrade to tun off/on the individual features at will and decide what kind of experience they want. Maybe they can offer a backward compatibility option at a price, if you own the game pay 3.99, full game 9.99. Take for example Code Veronica for PS4, is just an emulated ps2 game, with some advanced options turned on. I own the game for ps2, still i had to buy it (2.99 if i remember well). OK. Why not offer me for free or at a very low price the vanilla version with the low resolution and assets as the original, and/or offer me as a side offer the advanced options for an additional price. That is pro consumer, you give power and options to the user, and with it additional income to the developers for those games not currently available.**

What good does that do when frames render in 16 ms. Wrap your head around that, it takes 120 frames to fill the RAM. One hundred and twenty!!!

Compromises will have to be made. 1080p SDR to 4K HDR is 8x increase in memory. Ray tracing is a memory hungry process. Procedural generation is a memory hungry process. Living/changing environments, very memory hungry. Persistent worlds (all changes stay) very memory hungry. More variation in assets and textures, need more memory. Megatexures, need a lot of memory. Longer draw distance, bigger fov, need more memory. Memory is one thing you can never have too much off and the one thing you can't upgrade during the gen. (Well you can, but it's pointless cause parity needs to be maintained)

The SSD can help, but it's still at least 50 times slower than memory, with compression.

It's enough to get what we're used to in 4K and HDR. But I wouldn't expect any revolutionary new dynamic worlds etc.

Count me as one of the people who only kinda care about specs.  I used to really care about 25 years ago, but the standards of what matters change every few years in the IT world.  That made me stop caring as much.  I also don't really think graphics need to improve.  I think they are good enough and improving graphics is a waste of resources.

However, two things that irritated me a lot with PS4 games were load times and especially install times.  There seems to be a lot of talk lately about load times, but I am willing to bet the SSD would shorten install times as well.  That sounds good to me, but I would have to see it on an actual game to know how good it is in practice. 

The other nice thing about faster load times is that it can potentially inspire new types of games.  For example the PS2 had much faster load times than the PS1 did.  The PS1 was great for huge, slow turn-based RPGs like Final Fantasy 7, but the PS2 could play huge open-world action games like GTA3.  I don't think open world action games could have been possible without faster load times.  It will be interesting to see if PS5 actually has new (non-VR) types of gameplay.  PS4 didn't really have new types of gameplay.  PS4 mostly had PS3 style games with better graphics.  Meh.

Citation needed.

Nope. AMD invented it for it's notebook APU's. It's just better sharing of TDP between the CPU and GPU to drive up clocks... It's just a more refined technology to what was in Raven Ridge in 2018.

If PS5 GPU had 42 CU and was clocked 2.67 GHz it would have 14.35TFlops not 12. 

Probably for the same reasons MS no longer talks about liftime sales of XB1. :P

Actually the exact opposite. Because a powerful GPU has lots more to offer than an Xbox. No matter what the price.