They have a 3.5-3.8Ghz Zen 2 CPU, with 8 cores/16 threads. - That means the Ryzen 7 4700G can be faster as it can turbo to 4.4Ghz.
Rather it would just be easier to just say Ryzen 3700X which suffers from the same issue.

However... Here is the kicker, those 8-cores/16 threads? You can't use them all for games anyway, so the CPU time available for gaming is probably going to be closer to that of the 3600X.

In saying that, you could get a 30-70% performance improvement just by going with Zen4... Add a few more cores and you could easily double performance with technology of today.

Ray Tracing is also *very* CPU demanding, so the more Ray Tracing you have, the more CPU time you need to keep the RT cores fed.

The GPU is definitely 6700XT/6750XT in terms of performance.
But we also need to remember that AMD's GPU's are pretty bad for Ray Tracing... The 6700XT class GPU's are mid-range.
The Playstation 4 for example released with a Radeon 7800 class GPU, not a 7700 class GPU.

So they are a further step down compared to the PC this time around.

Radeon 7000 is rolling out and they are a good step up over Radeon 6000 series, however Microsoft and Sony do get the advantage of working with AMD, so they get to "play" with AMD's upcoming designs before we get to see them (As console designs can take years), Radeon 7000 series alone is a generational leap over the 6000 series in terms of Ray Tracing.

I think Microsoft's approach is to build a "series" of consoles with regular hardware updates.

The Playstation 5 and Xbox Series X released on TSMC's "7nm" process.
We are pushing 5nm in the GPU space now and TSMC's 3nm is starting to pick up traction.

Microsoft and Sony also pushed out clockrates a little harder which tends to have a corresponding increase to power consumption... A more balanced chip would likely remove much of that.

I think in a year or two, a PRO console is more than justifiable... Even with technology of today we can already expect a 50% performance improvement on most aspects.

As for the architecture/compatibility issue...

Microsoft went from Graphics Core Next 1.0 to Graphics Core Next 4.0 with the Xbox One > One X and never broke backwards compatibility... And they were chalk-and-cheese in terms of core design.
Sony and Microsoft also went from GCN to RDNA 2 which is a larger leap than RDNA 2 to RDNA 3 and never broke backwards compatability.

Microsoft and Sony are employing monolithic OS's, drivers and kernels that smooth over discrepancies in hardware which makes it all a non-issue... Their focus is to be able to move everything forwards with new hardware.

I tend to agree that ray-tracing at decent frame rates would be a good argument behind a pro console, so it depends on whether that's something consumers are clamouring for or not.  Consumers were clamouring for 4K, hence the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X making sense.  I'm not sure there's the same clamour for ray-tracing (sadly, as ray-tracing is hella cool, IMO).

I agree that time will tell with how well the Series S holds up in 2025.  So long as developers have realistic resolution targets, or aggressive DRS, I think it'll hold up fine.  But you're right, time will tell.  Perhaps over time it'll drop from 1080 and 1440p down to 900p, which I'd be fine with if it's in the name of high frame-rates.

I think your comments are spot-on when it comes to there being no reason for a refresh to boost PS5 demand yet.  Despite a dramatically smaller motherboard in the 2022 PS5 redesign, I think they (at least in part) left the outer case unchanged as they're holding a "slim" repackaging back for when PS5 availability is finally starting to track significantly ahead of demand, whenever that is.

I could as easily say that they've only done a Pro series one generation out of four, so why assume they'll do so again?  I think it comes down to why they did it last time, and whether those conditions also apply to this gen.  There are those that (persuasively, IMO) argue that the "Pro" consoles last gen were due to the explosion of 4K TVs, and the Xbox One and PS4 being woefully inadequate for driving 4K at good framerates and high levels of detail.

A generation later and vastly more powerful systems, and (except for a few enterprising indie games) still targeting a maximum of 4K, and 8K screens are a long ways off from becoming mainstream.  So that's an argument against Pro consoles.

Microsoft is saying that economics are too, and they're anticipating prices won't drop fast enough this gen to make pro consoles make sense.  That's the entire reason they created the Series S, in fact.

   The thing with the Series S is it didn't exist in a vacuum.  It replaced the One S.  This is in contrast with the how Sony (which didn't make a lower-spec PS5 variant) is still making/selling PS4s, more than two years later.

   It's not a given that the Series S will have a problem down the line.  People with 1080p screens, or people who don't need leading edge performance, might remain happy with it throughout this gen, so long as developers target realistic fidelity levels (as they mostly have done so far, thankfully).  The Steam surveys suggest lots of people are spending lots of time playing on lower-spec PCs just fine too, so I don't see how this is any different.

Interestingly, that's how I feel about the Series S.  When my options are a PS4 on the low-end, or a PS5/Series X on the high ground, the Series S *IS* the middle ground surely?  And, especially if we don't end up with Pro consoles this gen, the extended cross-gen period, plus game subscription services that include lots of PS4/Xbox One games, and game streaming, I expect last-gen consoles to remain surprisingly relevant through this-gen.  And that will effectively keep the Series S the mid-range option throughout.

For sure, fully agreed.  My intent was to suggest that Sony started the trend with home consoles.  I wasn't thinking of handhelds, or PCs, or any other market where power gradations were already common.

Console revisions go back further than that.  The Intellivision had the Intellivision II (what we'd call a "slim" redesign these days).  The Atari 2600 had many revisions too.  But I think we're getting off-track here, as this thread was in reference to "pro" consoles, not redesigns.  Console redesigns are nearly as old as the console market itself, but pro home consoles only date back to last gen.

Me three.  I would potentially be interested in a home console version of the Switch.  No screen, two cartridge ports, more internal storage, and sell it for around the same cost as the Switch Lite.  They could sell that sucker at a profit, I suspect, because the screen is probably a pretty big chunk of the system's cost.

I think they should have also released a "Switch Pro" a few years back that was powerful enough to offer docked performance in handheld mode.  But that's not enough of an upgrade now, so releasing that now wouldn't make sense.

I think you're premature in judging the strategy as a misfire.  From the beginning, Microsoft said their expectation was that the Series X would sell better at first, and that the Series S would sell better over time.  And that makes sense to me, as the early-adopters are going to tend to want the most powerful options, but as the generation wears on and the mix of buyers shifts from more hardcore games to more casual gamers the Series S may indeed grow in popularity.  Given Microsoft's stated intentions/expectations, we will only be able to judge their success/failure at the end of this generation, not the beginning or middle.

I don't think I'd have to wait that long to gather that Microsoft made a serious miscalculation. Actually the bolded pretty much shows why it's indeed misfired. MS thought this generation will play out like X1/PS4 vs X1X/PS4 Pro where the low powered/cheap SKU sees higher demand or sales. They kept the Series S a secret until not long before launch as if to checkmate Sony.

It seems that by design, the Series X was positioned to be their limited-quantity/enthusiast SKU that's just there to assist the Series S, their primary SKU. This would not pan out well in a long generation. Series S has very little room for effective long term pricedrops compared to PS5 and Series X (see Wii vs PS3), and it's underpowered right off the bat, meaning it will age rather poorly especially if a midgen upgrade is planned. When/if midgen upgrades are launched, a lot of AAA developers will push for fidelity high enough for base (by then cheap) PS5 and Series X to struggle in achieving 1080p+/40+ fps (You wanna go higher? Get the PS5 Pro, or the Xbox Series XL, or a capable PC!), Series S won't be able to adequately handle games with such high workload. We're not yet feeling the S limitations because we're still stuck in the crossgen period, the vast majority of console-grade games are souped up/upgraded Xbox 1 games.

If Series X meets demand and continues to sell less than the S, I'd blame it on Microsoft's marketing and people giving up and switching to PS5 or PC. As always, I may be wrong and Series S does manage to appeal to a new large dempgraphic, but so far I'm not feeling it and I don't think it'll happen.

The Series X and PS5 aren't priced as "hardcore gamer" consoles. With inflation in mind, they're priced in line with typical powerful consoles. I don't know why you're assuming demand will decrease over time in favor of the Series S. The only notably underpowered home consoles I can think of are the Wii and Wii U, one managed to find huge success by appealing to a new dempgraphic early in its lifecycle, but ultimately having weak legs because it aged poorly (I predicted that), and the other was a commercial disaster. It's less that PS5/Series X are "hardcore", and more that Series S is too cheap/underpowered. The existing console playerbase have no problem paying up to $500 ($400 for digital editions) for a powerful console, the Series S is trying to solve an issue that doesn't exist.