It does feel like the move is already a done deal, but IMO the impact to PlayStation will be more about the reason why, and if they are abandoning their unique selling point for PS5 like Xbox have done.
I sort of get it with most of the PS4 games, because IMO, the PS4 was the least interest hardware of any PlayStation and produced the least interesting catalogue of PlayStation games to justify the console hardware - even if I did enjoy quite a few and some like Dreams were a revelation. Porting slow HDD based PS4 games to PC, as is, sort of makes sense, when the PS4 - because of losses in the PS3 gen - was a poor PC in all fairness that punched above its weight. But for me, if they go all-in like Xbox and completely waste the esoteric hw design features of the PS5, and design PS5 games around generic PC porting then I'll just go back to PC as my main platform if Jim and Hulst survive in their jobs with that anti-PlayStation-console strategy.
You mentioned earlier that you can overclock the GPU 2.1Ghz, but how did you arrive at that figure. and what was the exact frequency? Did you benchmark each change to arrive at that figure? Or is it possible that a lower frequency would have yielded a higher benchmark score, and despite your clock being stable it may have increased GPU error rates that are being corrected saliently? DF did an article about degraded performance from higher clocks on lower cards IIRC to try and suggest Cerny was wrong.
The reason I ask, is because the PS5 boosting is a paradigm shift, and deterministically provides higher performance when fully boosted at 2.23Ghz, and lower when the GPU deterministically drops clock to operate at - near - constant power draw when occupancy is greater, or when GPU controller determines a job will exceeded the available power.
Your GPU is reacting to compute demand, and error rates in various areas - with such a boosted clock - will be unpredictable across the full array of work it will do in a game - as it is a hobbyist style overclock with little more insight than anecdotal fps numbers or benchmark scores from rudimentary tests, at best. By comparison, the PS5 GPU has been simulated fully at the design stage for all valid workloads and a specific optimal boost clock has been choose for each workload based on trying to maintain static power use and not age the silicon prematurely - so when unoptimized code is causing the clock controller to pre-emptively drop the clock, the same re-optimised code, probably because of lower occupancy or reduced instruction use via code factorization, can then be boosted fully yielding better performance. The same reoptimized code running on an 80ROP 3060 ti gains no performance, but just uses less power.
So yes, I'm okay with paradigm shifting PS5 boosting.
. 
