In the case of a few poorly optimized PC ports perhaps, but an OC GTX970 outperforms consoles by a large margin; Digital Foundry's tests got an 87fps average on Battlefield 4 at 1080p and Ultra settings, while on PS4 the game runs at 900p with a mix of low, medium and high settings. Heck, the 970 will even let you run the game at about 40fps in 4K at high settings.

DF were also able to get Star Wars Battlefront running at 1080p/60fps on a GTX 780, a substantially weaker card, with everything but shadows set to Ultra.

Yes, I know it does. BF4 and Battlefront aren't exactly the games I'm complaining because they are impressively easy to run at high fps with great settings. The games that are really hard to reach 60 fps without compromises are mainly the Witcher 3, Ryse, Watch Dogs, Mortal Kombat X and others.

I won't count Arkham Knight and the new AC games for obvious reasons.

I can't see why it's a problem. Uncharted 4 did it and it's amazingly received. At the end of the day, if the game is truly great and the framrate is consistency. I don't think anyone could or should complain.

It depends, on Hack and Slash games, 60fps is a great help. But at 30 fps steady are playable too. So YES, 30fps at Camppaign isn't bad at all.

Of course you can choose settings in these games where a GTX970 / GTX 780 Ti / R9 290/X / R9 390/X / RX480 or even GTX980 can't keep solid 60 fps in 1980x1080. But these maxed out / Ultra settings aren't comparable to the settings a PS4 or XBO use.

When you use medium to high settings instead, the graphic fidelity should be closer to PS4 settings and result in doubled framerates (or abov) of the console version.

Yes, with those settings I can achieve that. I just find it a bit underwhelming that I expent the price of my PS4 on this GPU and it gives me just that. Again, I'm refering to the original discussion about how 1080@60 is the minimum on PC. My GPU isn't exactly cheap or weak to be considered the minimum, specially when the OC version of the 970 actually comes close to stock 980 territory, so it's a pretty beefy GPU. Also notice that I'm not just turning everything on max without looking, I'm using some common sense: cutting down a bit on the AA because it's demanding, not using super sampling and also avoiding Hairworks. If I turned everything on at 1080p I wouldn't reach 30 fps.

I want to explain to people reading this that, unlike the original comment that started it all, things aren't that easy to achieve. Some PC gamers try to sell the idea that any mid-end GPU like a 960 will do miracles while a 970-class one will give you ultra and 60 fps at 1080 and that 4K with a single GPU is easy to achieve. After upgrading my GPU, I saw the real picture. I'm not saying that I regret buying it, specially because it's a damn great GPU, but people have to be a bit more realistic. What they are trying to sell us is that you will get console-crushing visuals @ 60fps and maybe even get those at 1440p or more. At least with reasonable financial investiments, this is BS for a sizeable bunch of games.

Yeah, okay, I 100% agree with you on that. But it is also important to explain it from the other perspective, otherwise some console fans will get that as "proof" for weak PC hardware and unoptimized PC games.

I agree. People should understand that unoptmized games shouldn't get a free pass.

At least Ubisoft treats everyone equally, giving crappy ports for all platforms.

If you're talking about maxed out graphics settings, then yeah, a 970 won't always get you 60fps.

It should still allow for 60fps with better-than-console settings in most games though. (I mean, I don't have one myself, I'm just going by specs, stress tests, and benchmarks here)

It depends, on the optimization of the game, I have a GTX960 2gb, and I ran The Witcher 3 pretty solid (+50fps most of the time) with some highs and some ultra settings, Motion Blur and NVidia Hairworks deactivated. But today, I began to play Batman Arkham City, a old gen game, and got choppy framrate with PhysX  and MSAA maxed, have to deactivate PhisX, because even on normal have frame problems in closed areas (this is quite WTF?!).  Some games are better optimized, and some otehr look quite great without being ambitious graphically (Dark Souls 3 by example). Your CPU can be a bottleneck too, I have a old FX8320e, and I'm waiting AMD ZEN series to decide if buy one of those or go for intel again, then update memories and all that stuff again -.-. looking for a Rx480 later this year too...

But yeah, most PCGamers think that is easy as easy as to install and play all games, that's why sometimes, If I can, I get my games on consoles... Current Graphic fidelity is quite nice, and I'm considering getting PS4 Neo too, the refresh is a great option.