To compare the Flop performance of next gen is narrow-minded and missing some crucial factors in this console war.
Prior generations except for this one have never been about the Flops.
PS1 was about CD-Rom & fully polygon graphics
PS2 was about DVD and "Emotion Engine"
OG Xbox was about PC-architecture in a box
PS3 was about HD, Blu-Ray & Cell
360 was about Achievements, Xbox Live Arcade
In the current gen, many people spoke about console Flops because for the first time, both consoles were very similar and both based on PC-architecture - pretty basic, standard PC architecture. And the idea of Flops as a metric of comparison comes from the PC arena, but the success of PS4 had little to do with Flop performance, it was for many other reasons, not least of which was the games... it's the games which drove the success of every other generation for PlayStation too, and it's why 360 led for most of that generation... but right now regarding next-gen, without the benefit of games, we are focused on just the specs.
It's no surprise that next gen, Xbox wants to keep playing that game of Flop performance, it's easy, clear and falls directly into MS's area of expertise, which is PC-based performance metrics. However, the history of PlayStation gen-on-gen shows that they promoted something beyond the raw performance. Sony having the "most powerful console" was also only in-arguably true this gen and not in any other gen. Again, this generation was an anomaly and they both went a "safe" route for reasons that are well documented. On the surface, Xbox One was in ways more forward-thinking and arguably even more innovative with the Kinect.
Cerny paved a new path with PS4 while also highly respecting the PlayStation lineage of consoles. To compete purely on Flops would turn the console war into an "enclosed-PC war" and the raw Flop performance of those will always invariably fall behind PC. This is why it was an astute and smart move to focus on something other than Flops and change the game/move the goalposts with SSD. I see SSD akin to a new format, much like CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, but this new format has potential far beyond those technologies which offered little else other than more storage capacity. This doesn't mean PS5 is more powerful, and it doesn't mean XSX is worse. They are just both playing different games.
Phil Spencer even came out and said Sony and PlayStation aren't their real competitors... but Google and Amazon. Here:
We're getting ready for the Xbox Series x/playStation5 console war, but head of Xbox Phil Spencer says that Sony and Nintendo are not Xbox's true competition.
www.forbes.com
Stadia came out pushing their raw TFlop figure of 10.7. MS had to beat this. Again, MS are making their big push into streaming and they see Google & Amazon as their main competitors. Only MS can play this game with their deep pockets. Whereas Sony are marching to the beat of a different drum with the PS5 coming in below it.
Sony will easily win this console war IMO, just based on the back of their games alone.
MS has the high potential of coming out of this generation being the biggest overall gaming brand across Streaming, Mobile, Console & PC if they play their cards right.
Basically, the console war is good because it drives interest and debate, which in turn will lead to sales and a healthy industry and more/better games. Behind the scenes however, I don't believe there is much animosity between Sony and Microsoft. They probably recognise the fact they need each other in order to maintain a duopoly of-sorts, and I for one, as a Sony fan, am glad for Microsoft and Xbox to exist and playing the Flop game, and competing with those 1000-pound incumbents Google and Amazon. In a way, MS is a shield that protects Sony. I would hate for Sony to have to play the flop game (and only the flop game) and lose what makes PlayStation so special, which is innovative, unique and interesting gaming technology. In many ways, I see PlayStation as more "boutique".
Would MS like Sony's business? I believe they would love it, but I also believe they know they can't/won't compete directly right now when other massive competitors are coming up the rear.
Would Sony like MS's business? I believe Sony are comfortable exactly where they are for the moment and don't envy MS's position and their battle ahead against Google and Amazon.
Having said all that, Sony will possibly be forced to compete in the wider gaming arena before too long anyway, but my belief is that VR is a long-term lucrative growth area that remains largely untapped and holds massive potential for Sony to conquer, and MS will conquer streaming while leveraging their expertise in datacentres and servers. Bottom-line, the paths of both MS and Sony are largely divergent from here on out and while everyone continues to bicker and debate the pros & cons of their respective favourite systems, I'm sitting it out for a while and watching how this whole thing plays out.