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.
Pretty much. Not to mention the AF versions of CPUs. If AMD releases 3600 for $100 or less and call it 2600 AF like they did with Ryzen 1600 AF, just with a 2600, oof. I may have to take out my lube again.Last edited by Captain_Yuri - on 20 July 2020