How Bad Does a Typical Console Port Hurt Graphics?

[turkey3_scratch]

Okay, so let's do some comparisons, I need to see if this is right. Age of Empries III, released in 2006, I have and it has brilliant graphics and runs 60FPS on 30% average of my 750Ti on max settings. I also have Assasins Creed 1, released in 2008, and the graphics in this game are not as good and use 90% GPU usage on max settings. So does this sound normal to you guys? Are console ports like Assasins Creed really that unoptimized at which they would require 2X GPU power for about the same graphics as a PC-designed game?

 

[qubits]

logic says yes

bf4 was made to actually scale with consoles, entry level gpu's and up to high end hardware while some of the other games is like some high school students did the best they could like unity..

 

[Gam3r01]

Lets take this a step further... GTA IV. We have all heard of its port quality.
On low-medium I could average maybe 20FPS with a 965 and a 760.

Compare that to BF3 on ultra at 45FPS, SC2 ultra, even Planetside 2 on high 35 FPS on the same system.

 

[chenw]

Most of the 'ports' can be brute forced given powerful enough hardware, some ports run badly even with specs that far outstrips its original design (In my case, GTA 4 is my 'why did I even bother' kind, it still runs and looks bad on current gen PC hardware).