Is it me or the new-gen Xbox1/PS4 are underwhelming spec-wise?

[Kromis]

Da powah of teh cloudz!11!!!1

 

[exdeath]

Well here is Xbox 360 screenshot of Crysis 3, so I don't think the comparison of the PC version to COD on new Xbox is a very good comparison as even his face here looks better than the COD Ghosts comparison.

graphics graphics graphics blah blah graphics graphics blah

 

[Fox5]

For those saying that the ps4/One hardware is the same relative to current gaming hardware as the 360/ps3 were:

The 360 had a sort of hybrid x1800XT/x1900 card which at the end of 2005 was going for $300. The ps4 uses basically a 7850, which is a $160 card, and the One uses a 7790 which is $120.

The ps4/One use a 1.6ghz AMD octocore which at the very best will give performance close to an intel i5 3570, probably closer to an i3. At their time the 360/ps3 used CPUs at least clocked similarly to their desktop counterparts (in the 3ghz range) even though they used the IBM power architecture. So the performance delta here is probably actually pretty similar to 2005.

The 8gb of RAM both systems use is actually pretty generous compared to the last release, I would say this is the only area where it's better than the last round.

The ~3ghz cpus in the last gen of consoles offered single threaded performance probably in the same ball park as the new AMD cpus. (which still makes the 8 core amd set up disappointing)

 

[dguy6789]

The 3.2Ghz processors in the 360 and PS3 are worse(much) clock for clock than the Atom to give people a rough idea.

 

[BladeVenom]

The ~3ghz cpus in the last gen of consoles offered single threaded performance probably in the same ball park as the new AMD cpus. (which still makes the 8 core amd set up disappointing)

No, they were similar to the old G4 Apple processors. Which put them almost two generations behind Intel.

Developers were very disappointed in them. Anand even wrote a scathing article about it, that pissed off Sony and MS so much that they threatened the developers that Anand had talked to, and got the article pulled.

Last generation had great GPUs, but mediocre processors.

 

[HeXen]

It's probalby been brought up by now but COD is hardly an indicator of a platforms potential, it's made to run at 60fps and be good enough. Look at Killzone Shadowfall. It doesn't beat a maxed out PC running C3, but who was really expecting that?

Graphical feature wise probably not, however the art direction of KZ4 and it's futuristic city is far prettier to look at than some tree's growing out of an old building in C3.
Crysis 3 was short, uninspiring with a B flick storyline where all the environments follow the same pattern with crazy amount of repeated textures. They just tossed in an epic engine with great features to compensate for the lackluster art direction.
Killzone 3 did the art direction better imo and kept recapturing interest and I suspect similar for the new one.