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.