From digital foundry:

You'd need a Core i5 or Ryzen 5 system with something like an RTX 4070 to produce a technologically superior PC

Like we have all been saying, you can beat the Pro with way less powerful (and way cheaper) hardware than what the OP is claiming.

Edit

And DF also points out CPU heavily games won't see a fps improvement.

Daniel Owen's $880 build with much better Ryzen processor, and RTX 4070 which is faster in raster than RT than PS5 Pro GPU.

And if he used RX 7700 XT the build would $130 cheaper at $750.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/NMXxn6

Have YOU used DLSS3?

It totally depends on the settings (render resolution).

DLSS3 100% (DLAA), DLLS3 quality, DLLS3 balanced, DLLS3 performance and DLSS ultra performance give totally different results... both in image quality and in fps.

So will PSSR depending on the chosen settings. PSSR ultra performance will have much lower image quality than PSSR quality.

A game with raytracing "high" settings will show more fps than the same game with raytracing "very high" settings (more bounces, better global illumination, higher reflection resolution...).

Hilarious...

That's a lie.

It's not Apples to Apples.

PC vs PS5 pro.

Ram:
PC: 32GB+16GB VRAM
PS5 Pro: 16GB.

The PC has 3x the total Ram as the Playstation 5 Pro.

How is that Apples to Apples?

CPU:
PC: Ryzen 9 5900X - 12 CPU Cores, 24 Threads @3.7Ghz-4.8Ghz
PS5 Pro: Ryzen 7 3700X equivalent - 8 CPU Cores, 16 threads @ 3.85Ghz.

The PC has 50% more CPU Cores, almost an extra 1ghz max clock... Not to mention the 10-20% IPC improvement going from Zen2 to Zen3.
You are likely looking at upwards of 70% or more CPU performance once you load all those 24 threads on the Ryzen 9.

How is that Apples to Apples?


GPU:
PC: Geforce RTX 4080 16GB.
PS5 Pro: Radeon 7800XT or equivalent. (Actually less, but I digress.)

The RTX 4080 is likely about 50% faster than the 7800XT.

How is that Apples to Apples?

You literally COMPARE the Playstation 5 Pro to a PC where the shittiest component is 50% faster than what the Playstation 5 Pro has... And you complain it costs more?

You do realize DLSS is the best upscaler on the market? You don't need a RTX 4080 for 60fps gaming on PC... Nor can the Playstation 5 Pro run RTX 4080 quality settings at the same resolution and framerate as a RTX4080.

Don't be disingenuous and shift the goal post.

You can absolutely tell the difference between 4k native and DLSS.

The RTX 4080 can do native 4k without upscaling. AMD's Ray Tracing is a generation or two behind nVidias.

This thread (despite the false premise) made me think about how now that consoles are pretty much closed-platform PC's I wouldn't mind paying >$1,000 for an enthusiast-tier one that competed with top-end PC's. 

Maybe Sony and MS should just release different tiers from the start of each generation rather than have mid-gen refreshes.

$200-$300 bare minimum Series-S tier console

$400-500 mid-level console that competes with mid-ranged PC's.

$600-$700 that competes with upper-mid range systems like the 7700xt and 4070 ones being posted in this thread. 

Then $1100-$1500 that competes with top-end PC's (4080/7800 XTX level.) 

It's whales/enthusiasts who are buying the more expensive platforms anyway, so why not tier prices? Being able to buy a PS5 Ultimate with performance on par with an RTX 4080 for say $1300 wouldn't be that bad of a deal really. 

In the past manufacturers didn't do this because scaling at the software level wasn't as seamless as it is today. Microsoft already sort of dabbled with this with the Series S/Series X. 

It would be a nightmare to develop for, though, since it's essentially as if there were many consoles in the market to port the same game. A lot of devs are struggling with the Series S as it is.

That being said, if the PS5 Pro had like hardware emulation for PS1-PS2-PS3 as well, Xbox-style, that would have made it very worth its price. So I think there are potentially a lot of ways to increase the value of a premium console and make it desirable despite the price.

Or maybe if Sony just came forward and said "This will be a long generation, don't expect the PS5 in less than 5-6 years" that would also make the PS5 Pro more desirable.

If someone hasn't mentioned it yet (and I didn't in my previous post) PCs require no paid subscription to play online (internet connections cost money in most of the world, that's obvious). That's hundreds of dollars in savings in a console generation to play online.
Also, there are PC storefronts that let you back up many digital games. Console gaming doesn't let you back up any digital games, so if you're banned or publishers start removing licenses for purchased games (I don't believe this has happened in video games but has happened in film and television and could spill over to gaming), you don't have access to the digital games anymore.

The PS5 Pro's main issue isn't really the performance, or even the price in and on itself. It's its value proposition, which is very poor. There's a reason why high-tier PC components sell much, much worse than mid-range or even low-range; the value proposition is lower for the vast majority of potential customers. Paying up to and over 50% more for a slight increase (I had trouble spotting it myself) in visual fidelity is a poor proposition, just like it is in the PC space. For me, the PS5 overall, as a platform, lacks proper perceived value. I can get more than enough without one, the Pro does nothing to change that. I can afford one, but I have no interest in it, for what it is, and I won't be alone in thinking so. Sony's recent drive to release most of their biggest IPs on PC is likely to cement this sentiment for many.

So, the Pro doesn't look likely to pull in new demographics - there's not enough incentive to do so. And, it's a tough sell for existing PS5 owners as well, the performance boost just isn't significant enough to warrant the price difference. Add to that the fact that a disc-drive and a stand aren't even included, this is approaching Apple-levels of marketing feces, from where I'm sitting. Sony are also much more reliant on physical media than, say, Microsoft, with nearly 60% of their game sales still being physical copies. These figures are even higher for many first party titles (I believe Uncharted 4, among others, has almost 80% physical sales ratio). Apparently, there's been a surge in sales of external disc-drives this week, it would appear that physical disks still matter in their ecosystem. The amount of customers willing to spend up to 1100-1200$ to get a PS5 with the same capabilities as a base model, with minor visual fidelity increases, will likely not be huge.

In addition, bragging about RT performance is a huge mistake; AMD cards are famously much poorer at this. To make matters worse, FSR is also weak compared to DLSS, even Intel is catching up with XeSS. A more moderate performance hike, with the Pro model taking over the base model's price point, paired with a reduction in the price of the base model would have made much more sense in this market.

I think it definitely is more work, but not to the extent of "nightmare." Almost every game releases on PC at this point, and the problem this provides from a software development perspective is an order of magnitude larger in scope (instead of say four configurations or slightly more, given "performance modes", you have dozens to hundreds.) 

I think it actually solves a lot of the issues with these staggered hardware releases and provides much more benefit (from the software end) by doing it at the start of the generation rather than by having mid-gen refreshes, because then developers don't have to go back and patch games that have long since been released, but instead find an appropriate settings profile to match with each performance tier while they are in the peak of the initial development and have resources appropriated for it already. The mid-gen refresh isn't much worth it if games don't get patches. 

I actually think the bigger reason why they don't do this is because of the hardware R&D and marketing costs more than software development. The software end of things has been largely solved with middle-ware (proprietary game engines that scale seamlessly and automated testing environments.) Having hardware engineers design multiple different SKUs, is a huge cost for very little marginal benefit though. This pans out when you're trying to make a weaker system to sell to more people who otherwise wouldn't have purchased the platform by lowering the price or you are trying to get people to double-dip and buy a mid-gen refresh (hopefully also increasing attach-ratio as they are more willing to buy new software that takes advantage of it.) But if all of your tiered platforms have the same profit-margins anyway why would you care which one somebody buys and why would you invest in the R&D? The only way this would make sense is if people are moving towards gaming PC's and choosing to buy consoles at lower rates. In the past this wasn't much of an issue because the console experience was much more distinctive from PC gaming, but nowadays there aren't even many console exclusives that don't come to PC. In some ways, getting a PC can maximize which games you have available in your library because you'll get both Microsoft and Sony exclusives.