Let's quickly find out what an average 'gamer' PC (Steam Hardware Survey):
4-Core CPU @ 2.3-2.69ghz (The 4-core and above bracket is greater than the dual core bracket)
GTX 560ti w/ 1GB Ram
So essentially a 2500k, 8GB ram and a GTX 560ti
The CPU is no contest. A 2500k is FAR superior to a 1.6ghz AMD APU - it just is. I don't even need to go into this.
The RAM is also somewhat irrelevant. 8GB GDDR5 is great, but the only place you need the speed is in the GPU - there simply isn't that much to swap around at that rate in ANY current game. DDR3 is fine for 'RAM', while GDDR5 is fine for VRAM. Here is where things get interesting. Technically, both have the same amount of storage; however, the PS4's GDDR5 is unified - meaning that the amount dedicated to each sector is dynamic (if I understand it right). That means the GPU could use more than 2-3gb if it really needed to. Meanwhile on PC, we're stuck with 1GB VRAM and 8GB RAM. The question is; how many games actually need more than 1gb VRAM? Right now, not THAT many at 1080p. Even on the highest settings, games like Metro Last Light only use around 850-900mb of VRAM. Some games DO use more, some use far less. IMO it averages out to 1gb being fine RIGHT NOW, but we don't know about future games. 4K everywhere? Sure. Why not.
Lastly comes the GPU; a 560TI has can pull about 1263GFLOPS - which is a fair bit less than the PS4's 1840GFLOPS. This is where the PS4 actually 'wins' a fair bit. It's GPU is better than the current "average" gaming PC.
However, this does not equate to "One generation" - not by a long shot. The 3570k completely decimates the 1.6GHz jaguar APU, while the RAM/VRAM increases to 8gb/2gb, which gives a fair edge to the PC in terms of storage (still not over-all speed, but it's not needed), and the GTX 660ti has a theoretical GFLOP performance of 2460 - a lot more than the PS4's. That is what "one generation" of PC is (approximately) in terms of the average gamer.
What the PS4 is, is the average gaming PC, with the GPU upgraded to a non-TI variant of the GTX 660.
Such a rig could easily be had for sub-$1000 - and it would do far more than a PS4 in return (Email, work, graphic design, etc.). So that extra $400 (estimate) gives you a lot more capabilities as well as the ability to upgrade and tune it to your needs.
You COULD make the argument for base-level optimization, but really, that's not the best argument. I could make the argument that there are still PC games out there that simply CAN'T run on any console, even next-gen, because of the CPU demand being absolutely insane (AI War comes to mid, even though it's graphically very simple).
The other issue is that not many PC gamers upgrade over single-generation upgrades. Very few people would go from a a 560ti to a 660ti - they would wait for the 760ti or later. In this sense, for the average gaming PC to exceed the PS4 in every way, we'll have to wait for the "next generation" of gaming PCs to come around, as people finally decide to upgrade.
So, is Mr. EA guy right? No. Not at all - at least by saying "one generation". He is technically SORT-OF right in saying that it is better than the AVERAGE gaming PC out there (the CPU is worse, the GPU is better).
However, he doesn't say average; he just says PCs. This is where he's insanely wrong; as almost everyone has said, going completely insane on hardware can result with a PC that's equal to several PS4s (3970k, tri-SLI titans, 16-32GB RAM, Raid 0 SSDs, etc.).
Edited by doomlord52 - 5/23/13 at 2:22pm