Well KCD will be on both consoles and PC while SC will just be on PC, meaning we could end up with two different results.

Curious to know why this was noteworthy to Curl.

I just skip crappy first person shooters. It's easier that way. Why shell out full price for a broken game, when I can buy, like, 3-6 indie games that are way more fun, for the same price?

Or wait for price cuts.

Most indie games aren't worth playing, we know this from the many we get on PS+.

I'll pick it up when it's $2 on Steam, never reward a broken game, otherwise Publishers/Developers never learn.
Game needed another year of Dev time.

Yep. Deff CPU bound, just not across all cores.

It all comes down to the API's they used and how well threaded the game is.

There is also a threading bug where the game will overload a CPU core and become bottlenecked... And the solution is to restrict the game to one CPU core, obviously impossible on console, but the game has a bug where it will even bring down a $1000 CPU to it's knee's.

With that said... All 8 Jaguar cores are equivalent to a Core i3 @ 3ghz, which is more than capable of running the game if used right as the benches have shown.

On the PC the game is using Direct X 11, not Direct X 12 which has some advantages in regards to CPU performance, would be hilarious if it was also using Direct X 11 on the Xbox One and OpenGL on the Playstation 4, would explain allot.

Except the console developers don't get to use all the CPU cores in these consoles, I feel like people on this forum forget that. You are limited to a 4 Core + 2 Core.
There are also ways around the cache invalidating each other, developers successfully did it on the PS3.

On the Xbox One it's a case of using the eSRAM like an L4 cache.

Cry Engine is fully capable of utilising every single CPU core you throw at it. With one Caveat, every Cry Engine game tends to stack allot of CPU tasks onto one CPU core, which isn't an issue on the PC considering how many orders-of-magnitude faster the CPU's are, but it's an issue when your CPU is equivalent to that of a Tablet.

An old stock 2500K can manage a minimum of 60FPS provided lower graphical settings ... 

A stock 980 Ti can't even manage 60FPS minimum at 1080p on the highest setting, maybe a 1080 can do it but not a stock 980 Ti ... 

I am more than willing to believe that the developers were mindful about the consoles limitations when making the game. I don't even think the bottlenecks are on the API/CPU side when AMD GPUs perform relatively fine to their Nvidia counterparts despite having a far more mediocre command processor ... 

I wouldn't be surprised if consoles were using a customized version of DX11 or GMNX ... 

Just because the game was built on PC using DX11 doesn't mean that there's no way to lower CPU overhead without sacrifices in game design. There exists driver extensions that all IHVs offer ...

A game releasing in a very poor state is worth a word of warning for those who may have been looking to buy it, and an Xbox One performance lead is noteworthy simply because of how rare it is; PS4 usually commands the performance lead in multiplats for obvious reasons.

I think he was asking on a personal level ... 

How does Homefront running in a poor state and smoother on the X1 matter to you when you detest generic military shooters and the HD twins let alone this entire generation ? 

I'm not hugely fond of tornadoes, but it's still interesting when there's one on the news.

Also, sometimes the resulting discussions are more interesting than the thing itself.

Well its 1080p on PS4 and 900p for xbox one so its all normal here.