Yea the road to 4k is a hard one on all platforms. The 3000 series and RDNA2 cards should do a lot better at 4k but mainly their top tier ones which will require a good amount of bling bling. What Sony/MS need are their own versions of DLSS and have those upscale from 1440p. If they can do that, it would do wonders instead of chasing native.

If there is an AMD equivalent of DLSS 2.0 then that would be huge but they would need time. DLSS 2.0 is a big jump from 1.0 so much so I'd probably not notice the difference in gaming. 

3000 series should have 4k sorted and hopefully RDNA2 as well but with ray tracing involved that eats into that performance on console which is why you need things like DLSS. So considering Ray Tracing is being pushed for marketing I think we'll have to wait for mid gen refreshes (if they even happen) to get 4k60 across the board.

If someone only cares about games and doesn't care about upgrading he will buy a console, it's that simple. No reason to compare a price when there is no alternative. Same the other way around. Even if a PC is 10 times more expensive than a console but does a thing a console can't do you will still buy the PC and not the console.

Another thing you ignore in your comparison is getting a PC that is weaker than a console. If you want a gaming PC you don't have to get high midrange. You can just get a cheaper PC and upgrade later when you have the funds. There is no reason to match a console's power 1:1 if you just want to play games and are on a budget.

Which is why my recommendation as to whether get a console or PC would never be the price, but the use case.

AMD and Nvidia cards are out soon and will outdo consoles easily in the mid-range/lower budget builds. Cost is another matter :P Such is the case then you build on ever evolving technology.

In a few years these consoles will be easily overlapped with Zen 3/4, Navi 3x/4 and Nvidia's new architecture (7nm). Not to mention faster PCI-E lanes and RAM and more memory. With every new generation for GPU performance for features like raytracing, DLSS and the like, tech the gap will widen even further. Like PS4/Pro and Xbox One.. Polaris in the pro got superseded easily within the same year.

Generally, each GPU generation knocks the previous rankings down one grade. So the 5700XT would then become similar to a 6600XT or even just 6600, complete with a drop in price down to the relative performance level.

The reason why this pricedrop didn't happen last time(s) is because AMD didn't compete in the high-end market at the time, having concentrated all their ressources into the Zen architecture, and as a result NVidia could increase the prices with impunity. But now with first leaks that Big Navi would be about 40-50% faster than a 2080Ti, NVidia can't keep their prices so high, or the customers would all flock over to AMD.

I fully agree. It's just that console killers have always existed in the PC space, with PC gamers saying why buy a console when you can get a PC for a similar price that can do everything else a PC can do and perform similarly in games.

This thread was just to say that's probably not gonna happen this time. 

By the end of the end of the year you should be able to build a PC about £1000 that will surpass consoles in just about every way that matters. Ryzen R5 4600 with RTX 3060 / RX 6700.

I feel Nvidia did pull an intel with the RTX 2000 series with their pricing and effort. It could've been much more powerful at a lower price if they really wanted to so I really hope pricing is competitive this time around. 

This is why I think creating a perfect relative in terms of price on PC is almost impossible.

Let's start with the CPU for instance: 8 core, but one reserved for the OS, less cache and lower boost speed. So should the equivalent PC build use a 3700X (since 8 cores), or just a 3600X or even 3600 (to take the missing core, cache and lower speeds into account)?

Now to the SSD. What will that fast SSD really do on the PS5, especially on multiplats? My guess is that it's a great thing, but will only really be utilized in first and second party titles, causing a similar (although less pronounced) problem than what Sony had with the Cell in the PS3. So a PCI-E 3.0 NVMe SSD of the same size should suffice - or does it?

Really, the best time to see what the consoles really can do and how much an equivalent PC would cost would be shortly after launch, after the real world performance of the next gen had been tested in a couple games. Only when you know what they can achieve can you really make something equivalent in performance.

I also dislike the notion of a console killer for all the reasons you mentioned. But I also want to see how much a PC with similar performance costs and how far away that is to the cost of the consoles. If the price gap between PC and consoles for the same performance gets too big, then it will drain gamers away from the PC and to the consoles. The other way around is also true, if the consoles bring not enough tangible advantage over a gaming PC, then why not directly go to the latter? It's all an act of balance that needs to be achieved here for both to thrive.

From what I've heard is that GDDR6 was in very high demand but also very low supply, which raised the priced up a lot in 2019 and kept the prices for graphics cards high. I'm sure this problem is (mostly) gone next GPU gen, and prices can thus easily go lower this time around.