The 750 Ti is a PS4 level GPU. Maxwell is much more efficient, per streaming multiprocessor, than the GCN architecture in the XB1/PS4. And CPUs don't evolve as fast as GPUs. The Core 2 Duo performs better than Jaguar CPUs quite easily:
Granted, the PS4/XB1 can use 6 or 7 cores instead of 4, but at a lower clock than desktop Jaguars, and even then, the difference would still be there in favor of the Core 2 Duo. If it were a console, the Core 2 Duo + GTX 750 Ti would be close to the PS4 graphically, and be much more balanced than the Wii-U (the console which had the largest CPU-GPU gap I can think of ).
The 760 does, the 750Ti is much more akin to the XBO GPU. There's a reason why AMD markets the RX 560 as a 750Ti upgrade path, despite the RX 560 being roughly PS4 power. Here you can compare both GPUs and see how the 750Ti just can't keep up in any metric to the RX 560, which is considered 40% faster than the 750Ti.
I don't agree on the CPU because the E8400 is very, very slow by today's standards. In fact it can't lit up a candle to any Bulldozer chip, even the weakest ones run circles around the E8400 - and we all know how derided the Bulldozer got for it's low performance.
It's true that CPU don't evolve very fast anymore - but that's on Intel practically stopping caring for IPC after Ivy Bridge (Core ix 4xxx series) and just clocked a bit faster and added some cores since Ryzen came to be. But until then Processors evolved very fast and you had to chance your CPU almost as often as your GPU if you wanted to keep up.
Here's a much better comparison, as you can see the A6 6310 is roughly equal to the E8400 even on per-core performance even though the E8400 has a much higher clock speed, and the A6 goes right past the old Intel chip in multithreaded performance with 4 CPU cores already, so you can expect that the 6-7 active cores on a PS4/XBO roughly double the performance here.
The Nintendo eShop rating Thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=237454