MS no longer talks about lifetime XB1 sales because they lost. The opposite of that is winning, so I guess a brand new computer build must win in the price to performance race then right?

Look man, I love my PC. Both Series X and PS5 look underwhelming. Series X will have few games just like XB1. PS5 lacks proper backwards compatibility, is a bit weaker than I expected, and will likely hand all its exclusives over to PC. I probably won't even get a PS5 until 2022 or later. If I get one at all.

But a console beats a PC in price to performance by 3:1. Even if you were to factor in all the extra things a PC can do, it still winds up lacking dollar for dollar compared to a regular console. It's a premium product for people that don't care about money. If there were such a thing as a $700 PlayStation, with graphics power to match, and full backwards compatibility PC would be some extremely niche market. Like Kosher food. Or Hentai. 

The more I really dissect,. the more excited I get (and yes, I like that the specs are using very different techniques, makes it feel more a real battle)...

Here is some important stuff I'm gonna give everyone (for the less savvy)...

• The Xbox Series X's GPU is more powerful, period — full stop, with 52 compute units compared to Sony’s 36. This suggests the Series X may have 1.5x more graphics power. But even the teraflop counts, the metrics you’re most likely to have seen so far, are not quite so far apart. Microsoft says the Xbox Series X has 12.155 of theoretical power, and the PS5 delivers 10.28TF. The Xbox is around 1.18x as powerful.
  
  
• But nothing is quite as simple as a single figure, as I and Pemalite have stated a time or two. One way Sony manages to narrow the performance gap between the PS5 and the much more powerful “engine” of the Series X is to use a variable GPU clock speed. The Xbox Series X GPU is locked at 1.825Ghz. Sony’s PS5 GPU can reach 2.23GHz, but will not always operate at this frequency. It has a less “beefy” CPU, but can work it harder. And this makes us wonder about its cooling system, which we have not seen yet.
  
  
• The PS5’s drive is far faster, though. It is capable of 5.5GB/s data transfer, which turns into 8-9GB/s when compression is used. This does not slow the console down either, as there is hardware dedicated to decompression of this data. Microsoft’s Xbox Series X SSD is fast, and can use similar hardware-based compression, but its speeds are 2.4GB/s, or 6GB/s with compression.
  
  
• The PS5 can, in a sense, outperform its superior on-paper competitor, but, the Series X should be able to sustain its performance for far longer. The PS5 can sprint, but it can’t sprint all day.

Any questions? Ask away!

Price/performance does not matter on PC. We all know if all you want to do is play games that are on console and don't care about anything else there is nothing that beats a dedicated console. You go to PC if you want something that console can't do, which is a lot of things. If you go PC gaming you pay not only for performance, you pay for everything else you need to as well. Comparing price/performance of console to PC is like comparing an mp3 player to a smartphone. Of course a smartphone will lose, but it's pretty much irrelevant because a smartphone is a smartphone and people buy it usually to do more with it than just listen to music. That doesn't make the smartphone a loser.

That's why for a PC user it's pretty much irrelevant how much consoles cost. If a PC player needs a graphics or other hardware upgrade he'll pay what he has to and there are great prices out there so PC users do not have to break their bank. It's time for people to stop spread the myth of the rich PC gamer. The vast majority of PC users have mid to low end hardware. Lots of people have their hardware for about as long as a whole console generation or longer and they can easily upgrade their system for cheap instead of buying everything new. It is absolutely possible to pay just as much as console players do to keep up with the games and have a passable rig. It might not be exactly as powerful, but it does other things that consoles don't do and that is the whole point.

If a console existed that was on par with high end PCs for half the price, PC would still be a thing. Poor PC gamers would opt to not pay $700 and rather get a minor upgrade that costs less for them. Rich PC gamers would still opt for a PC that's double as expensive because in the end it is impossible for consoles to hold the performance crown.

I mean think of it that way, the price proposition of consoles is so terrible for some people that they'd rather spend more or get a weaker system just so they don't have to use a console. In that way PC's aren't the little loser brother to consoles, they are the monument of all the failings of consoles. The mere existence of gaming PCs is a sign that consoles are doing something horribly wrong or at least are turning off enough people to make a multi billion industry out of it.

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.

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.

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.**

Small correction, Cerny confirmed some data on the Spider-Man was duplicated over 100 times on the HDD. They were very splicit that game size would be reduced with the SDD solution.

25:00 - 26:26

Cerny does say 'discreet GPU products around the time PS hardware comes out'. That would likely mean SmartShift isn't one of them as it's already out.

The only question on the sprint all day is how thrustworthy Cerny saying the system was designed to be always in boost mode and that it won't overheat, power consumption is always the same and the heat is already covered. Just that it will have some small percentage trade-off between the load on CPU to GPU (to save like 10% power on small decrease of frequency).

Also the other aspect that needs more detail on the architeture is how much the extra frequency will help PS5 against the choice for less CUs.

Got a source?

Seems Cerny is stating that they bring forth "concepts". - AMD actually builds and invents the tech.
We actually saw that with Graphics Core Next when Sony pushed harder for higher ACE unit counts... Which assisted heavily with asynchronous compute.

We simply don't know yet.

The more I really dissect, the more excited I get (and yes, I like that the specs are using very different techniques, makes it feel more like a real battle)...

Here is some important stuff I'm gonna give everyone (for the less savvy)...

• The Xbox Series X's GPU is more powerful, period — full stop, with 52 compute units compared to Sony’s 36. This suggests the Series X may have 1.5x more graphics power. But even the teraflop counts, the metrics you’re most likely to have seen so far, are not quite so far apart. Microsoft says the Xbox Series X has 12.155 of theoretical power, and the PS5 delivers 10.28TF. The Xbox is around 1.18x as powerful.
  
  
• But nothing is quite as simple as a single figure, as I and Pemalite have stated a time or two. One way Sony manages to narrow the performance gap between the PS5 and the much more powerful “engine” of the Series X is to use a variable GPU clock speed. The Xbox Series X GPU is locked at 1.825Ghz. Sony’s PS5 GPU can reach 2.23GHz, but will not always operate at this frequency. It has a less “beefy” CPU, but can work it harder. And this makes us wonder about its cooling system, which we have not seen yet.
  
  
• The PS5’s drive is far faster, though. It is capable of 5.5GB/s data transfer, which turns into 8-9GB/s when compression is used. This does not slow the console down either, as there is hardware dedicated to decompression of this data. Microsoft’s Xbox Series X SSD is fast, and can use similar hardware-based compression, but its speeds are 2.4GB/s, or 6GB/s with compression.
  
  
• The PS5 can, in a sense, outperform its superior on-paper competitor, but, the Series X should be able to sustain its performance for far longer. The PS5 can sprint, but it can’t sprint all day.

Any questions? Ask away!

Outside of in-house optimization, it cannot sustain itself like the Series X, not at a constant 2.23GHz all the time.

We simply don't know yet.