Seems like with the PS5 Pro Sony wants to keep 60fps as the goal, with the most quality they can.

Owning a PS5 I can't say unless I had a lot of money I don't know what to do with that I would pay twice of thrice the price of the PS5 Pro on just a gpu to run games above 100fps when they already look amazing on PS5. I don't see the point of paying the Pro price to being with.

But that looks like it leaves console makers little to no chance of having affordable hardware anymore if they want high end graphics. Well, PSSR and machine learning look like some kind of hope the PS6 may not cost like $800 or something.

To be honest ray tracing can look cool but it feels like a big problem wanting to accomodate decent or high quality RT + high end graphics + 60fps or above, and not start reaching ludicrous prices like those high end gpus.

I'm worried about console prices and current high end gpus prices are not making me fell any better, lol.

Leaks have it around 60 to 70% higher performance than the 4090, a 4090 is roughly double a ps5 pro.  The 5090 sounds like a monster, but much like other premium items, it comes with a step cost.  

I'll likely upgrade when they are readily available.  

120 fps is amazing but I don't really recommend because it requires a stupid amount of power.  

Consoles are superior bang for the buck.  I don't see that changing anytime soon.  Consoles are great value and the ps5 is a great machine. 

RT is a stupid resource drain.  Frankly I don't think consoles should even bother.  RT ultra kills fps on a 4090.  RT utility is a generation out, unless people are willing to go 4080 or 4090.

I'm not worried about console prices.  Games are scalable and Sony will always offer a mid price option.  Honda still sells a Civic despite what Lambo has.

As for of high end is worth it, a matter of personal preference + disposable income.  

PC and traditional console will just see lower sales most likely from their peaks with higher pricing, but it's clear everyone is shifting towards having higher margins as more desirable. PS5 is already drifting below PS4 and PS4 didn't even come close to PS2. 

Sony and Nvidia don't care about end total numbers as their leadership position is relatively secure with little direct competition, no point in dropping the price of your product when you know you're going to be the overwhelming market leader. Playstation doesn't have much to worry about from XBox, Nvidia doesn't have much to worry about from AMD. 

Then for Nvidia on top of that, gaming PCs are a tiny part of their business and frankly don't matter much so there's even less real motivation to work very hard for every sale.

GPU sales were higher 6 years ago, 10 years ago, they'll likely continue to shift downwards some as the pricing becomes higher but I don't think Nvidia cares much. It's not what drives their business anymore (not even close). 

Sorry, but without proper benchmarks/comparisons of a lot of multiplatform games both estimates are just wild guesses for now.

I wouldn't call it a wild guess.  DF has the Pro around a 4070.  Via benchmarks the 4090 is 100% higher than a 4070.  Certainly an estimate, but more than a guess.

^ this.

DF saying it performs abit below what a 4070 does (from their testing), but its the closest match on PC, GPU wise for it.
Then you just need to look at some place like Techpowerup, find a aggravated performance chart from a review, and see how much faster a 4090 is than say a 4070.

Then you do end up in the 90-100% range, depending on what model of 4090 you have (overclocked models will double a PS5 gpu performance) (going by DF).


So If you have a 4070 and use DLSS, your matching or beating a PS5pro.
IF you have a super, 4080, 4090, your well above a PS5pro.

Thats hardly a "Wild guess".
They looked at frame rates a PS5pro had in a game, and took a PC with simular setting (eyeballing/best match) (in said game), and tried to match performance.
Which is why they said it takes a 4070, to match a PS5pro.

You two were arguing if an RTX 4090 is 90% or 100% faster than a PS5 Pro.

And the problem with the TechPowerUp ranking... their test parcour is quite aged.

Older games like Doom Eternal, Metro Exodus, Control, Far Cry 6, the DX11-version of The Witcher 3...

Other sites with newer games in more demanding settings have a bigger gap than 100% between RTX 4070 and RTX 4090.

And if they adapt their test parcour once or twice a year, that gap widens further.

For example the UHD-results of 20 games at PC Games Hardware (PCGH).

September 2023 test parcour (20 rasterizing games): RTX 4090 was 109% faster than the RTX 4070.
Summer 2024 test parcour (20 newer rasterizing games): RTX 4090 was already 125% faster than the RTX 4070.

September 2023 test parcour (10 raytracing games): RTX 4090 was 122% faster than the RTX 4070.
Summer 2024 test parcour (10 newer raytracing games): RTX 4090 was already 129% faster than the RTX 4070.

I'm curious if the gap between RTX 4090 and RTX 4070 widens again in their 2025 test parcour with even newer and more demanding games. We'll see probably in a few months.

Are consoles superior bangs for buck though. Throughout a 7 year gen you have to pay for:

- 400 euro for the console

- 500 euro for being able to play online

- 75 euro for a second controller

- 10 euro more per game and worse sales 

Now you can't make a fantastic system with 975 euro. But I think when the PS5 launched for that money a 2070/Ryzen 3600 build should have been possible. The paid online and the often 10 euro premium on digital console games significantly decrease the better bang for buck. Granted once in a while you do get a decent PS plus game.