Sangeet Khatri :
But consoles are going to be totally dependent on the Multi Threaded performance, wheras PC's would still be dependent on the combination of Single Threaded and Multi Threaded performance (mostly upto 4 cores).
That actually makes no sense whatsoever. If a console game is forced to be more threaded due to slower CPU's and more cores, why would they
remove that from the PC version? Obviously BF4 is one of the first games to use 8 cores for a reason... It
has to to fully take advantage of the games consoles.
You may of course be talking about PC only games, or maybe even older games. But no older game has ever had problems running on an 8 core, so without dipping below the power needed for the future generations of consoles, that problem doesn't really exist.
Also to add an addendum to the point about BF3... regardless of it looking like crap on that tricore, with 512MB RAM and an ATi X1800 sharing 256MB of that, it still looks at least as good as the PC version at minimum settings. That's a technical description of the Xbox 360 if you were wondering. Consider the fact that the PC minimum spec for that game is 2GB RAM, 512MB GPU, and a Radeon 3870 or higher.
So to run the game at minimum spec on a PC, that's a total of 5 times the required RAM, at least twice the CPU power* and a GPU that came out with the same price as the whole 360... 3 generations and two years after.
Building a system that has the same hardware as the PS4 is one thing. Suggesting that games will run just as well on a general purpose OS is bulls**t.
*Updated IBM G5 tri-core vs Core 2 Quad, and lets not forget that speed difference was so big it's why Apple switched to Intel