Another thing you'll notice,
@76Knockout, is that the consoles can only (sort of) keep up on more current titles, as you've already experienced, but that only works in the present, and moving forward. Microsoft/Sony do everything they can to ensure their consoles don't "age" as quickly as PC hardware relative to the ever-increasing AAA performance demands. The strategy of improving the console hardware itself with major upgraded renditions (ex. PS4 Pro; Xbox One X) is a new wrinkle because there are simply limits to optimization, and that's their strategy for meeting higher resolutions. Naturally, the baseline version of both consoles date to autumn 2013, so both are already quite a bit older than your PC
(summer 2016 hardware), and can't keep up.
Oh, it occurs to me,
@76Knockout, that this portion of my post won't make sense to you unless I correct an apparent ignorance you revealed in your OP. PC games are NOT better optimized. PC hardware is vastly superior, and the game software offers far greater customization, adaptability, hacks, and third party content (modding).
Optimization is all about developers working to marry their game to a particular combination of hardware. In the PC world these combinations are almost limitless, with a lot of branches, so to speak, but in the Console world there is only a single setup that they have to worry about: a single tree. That's why the consoles will so significantly outperform PCs equal to them, and don't "age" relative to their horsepower as quickly.
It's similar to Apple vs. Android. Apple's incredibly limited set of hardware combinations is what allows for so much stability and performance efficiency.
I don't know where the teraflops comparison is coming from, that is not where I got it from. I read and article that literally said it was a derivative of the 1070, slightly better or slightly worse.
There's a lot of inaccurate information about PC hardware on console gamer websites, and there's also a lot of speculation about formally unannounced hardware before we see official specs. A couple of the better console-aimed websites that will tackle this are Digital Foundry and Eurogamer, but sometimes they don't mind their P's and Q's, either.
IIRC, that was a Digital Foundry article. I believe I read it. They arbitrarily picked the GTX 1070 because it was supposed to be ~35-40% stronger than the expected GPU performance of what will be in the Xbox One X, and they argued this was probably about appropriate as an analogue for the Xbox One X in their tests because of the natural optimization advantage I just discussed above that consoles hold over PCs. They offered virtually no analysis to justify the 40% figure, but any honest PC enthusiast would accept the spirit of that reasoning-- if not that specific figure.
The point of the article wasn't to figure out the closest PC GPU compared to the XBX internal hardware, but to assess whether or not the XBX would have sufficient power to realistically run a native 4K system with the latest AAA titles. They arrived at the conclusion it won't (which we already knew about the GTX 1070). It will be able to run 4K, but only by cheating with upscales the way the original PS4/XB1 did to meet 1080p@60fps demands.
