THe article talks about consoles and PC in the same vein - machines. The ratio of machines to persons is not defined for any of them. BUT. It talks of "user base"- are those users not persons, but machines? Nvidia statement about "active geforce users"- machines?
I tell you that statistics takes care of this ratio, because median gfx card buying PERSON is not rich, does not buy top of the line, has one card etc. People buy 80-100 million gfx cards EACH year. Median will use them for gaming, very small outliers use them for work. Median people buy ONE card for its prime purpose - Which means the average user base will not adjust all the way down to being less than both consoles MACHINE park (40mill).
Seriously? Still with the same article.
People buy gaming consoles for one thing. Games.
Gaming capable PCs are bought by people for, graphic design, multimonitors, F@H, educational purposes, video editing, just because they have the cash.
You cannot say that the ratio is the same. People buying an Xbox are Xbox gamers, not everyone that buys a gaming capable PC is a PC gamer.
How is buying a separate video card like 8800gt and not gaming on it is different from buying an PS3 and not gaming on it? If there is no difference, then the adjustment of machine:user ratio is symmetric.
It would be the same... but people aren't doing that. You think people buy Xboxs and PS3s for their tea and coffee making functionality and don't play games on them? One of the big advantages of the PC is it is not solely a gaming tool. You can do more with it.
Meanwhile games sales suggests that PC gamers are several times smaller in number than console gamers, which is strictly not true.
Yet the market of PC gamers interested in new games just is smaller. You can't count all the teenage girls playing farmville, office workers doing CAD design, or anyone with a second monitor as gamers.
Look past that silly tweak guides article. It's not a detailed report compiled by some industry expert like you seem to think. It's some bloke that writes tweaking guides having a ten page opinion, that I disagree with and think is flawed (as do others clearly). I remember reading it back in 08 when he first put it up.
He selectively quotes, makes assumptions when calculating values, and cleanly avoids obvious logic that doesn't match his statements. You seem to have a lot in common with him...
EDIT : Borsch is a troll, no one can be that....... Stupid?
I didn't think so. But I'd have thought even the most dedicated troll would have got bored by now.