It's called a hypothetical. The point is to show that comparisons between console and PC hardware are not facially invalid as you claim. They can be difficult and muddy, but it's obvious enough that if the value proposition shifts far enough to one side, the other is affected.You can't just make wild statement like "GPU that costs three as much as shipping console and performs a third as good". A RTX 3070 is neither of those.
You seem to be arguing that the new consoles are selling at a greater loss this time. I haven't seen any evidence to support such an assertion. I've seen some speculation on news sites that the XSX is around $500 per unit, but take that with a pinch of salt. Most likely, they're selling at a bit higher loss than launch PS4, but a much lower loss than launch Xbone.Also, back in the PS4 XBone days, things are very different. The online services was no where near the money making capability as today, console had a bigger lock on game exclusivity, and the hardware at the time was not that great.
Only the total loss per unit is relevant here, but no, AMD's graphics division was in pretty good shape when they were awarded the last gen console contracts. GCN started faltering a bit against Kepler, even though the actual hardware was superior with proper drivers, and the technical decline only began in earnest against Maxwell.AMD was in a bad shape with both their CPU and GPU.
On the other hand, when AMD would have been awarded the contracts for the next gen, their graphics business had been thoroughly bruised and battered.
False equivalency. We aren't comparing the price of the new consoles to Turing, we're comparing them to Ampere. By the same token it's not Zen 2 parts that we need compare the new consoles against, it's Zen 3.If you're going to complain about a $500 NV GPU, then what about a Ryzen 3700x that's $300 when just a slightly slower version is in the $300 series S?