Its going to be another generation where Sony has better looking exclusives than Microsofts, even in 4k. Its easy to build something when you cannot create new content for it. Microsoft cannot outdevelop Sony and Sony trailed them until they caught up with them for a reason. When the hype builds up about how great their exclusives play and look it no longer matters. Only difference is Sony is destroying the Xbox One 2:1 and the fans are still talking.

Wait wait i thought ps4 and xbox one could handle anything this generation?

Get a decent PC and problem solved.

I can go on the internet with the one I have, so I dont need a new one.

What are you running?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-09-17-destiny-review

"For casual downtime, there's Patrol - a free-roaming mode available on each planet, with an endless supply of very basic micro-missions to do (kill stuff, collect things, scan doohickeys). Patrol exposes the fact that Destiny isn't really an open-world game, or even that big. Its maps are more akin to giant shooter levels connected by narrow passageways than a truly expansive open world, so pinging around them can be awkward."

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/704532-destiny/69685738

Your definition of arena shooters is also dubious. Diehards of the subgenre would scoff at you calling Battlefront one.

Let's not assume that a guy building a PC on his mom's basement knows more than dozens or hundreds of top-class engineers. They just wanted to run the same games the base model does in higher resolution. That's why the CPU is the same while the GPU is way beefier.

Anyway, Destiny 2 is an online only game. Sony's MP politics demand that online titles play at the same performance on all models. Even if it had an i7 under the hood it would still have to comply with the rule.

You can't offload all tasks to the GPU. Not everything can be parallelized. AI normally can't (lots of branching).

What are you on? Switch is about 13,000 mips after 1 cpu is taken for the operating system. PS4 is something like 33,000 after 1 cpu is taken by operating system and the architecture is better too with many CISC optimisations possible. It's about 3-4 times more powerful but then it has to drive a gpu about 8-12x more powerful as the Switch gpu when portable. PS4 absolutely slaughters the Switch for cpu performance and the xbox one goes even further which is slighter faster in cpu terms. PS4 pro takes it even further again. PS3 slaughters it in cpu terms too and xbox 360 is just ahead, about 17,000 after one thread is taken for OS. Most modern mid range to high end android tablets have higher cpu resources than Switch, as do many smart phones. The Switch is faster than wii u but that was only about 9,000 mips. What would be the point of the Switch being any faster anyway it only has 25.6GB/s of memory bandwidth it would just end up bottlenecked if they pushed the cpu and gpu any more. Don't forget its 3 ARM A57 chips at 1ghz nothing more and that 25.6GB/s memory bandwidth has to be shared between games and the operating system. It has limited memory bandwidth so it simply cannot move data around in anywhere near the same level as ps4 or xbox one, its memory bandwidth is actually less than ps3 and xbox 360 and some would make the case less than wii u which had 12.8GB/s for main memory but something like 60GB/s for its 32MB of high speed memory used for the frame buffer so the wii u had 2 pools of memory compared to only one with the Switch.

The top performing pc cpu's now are well over 300,000 mips.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_second

I have to question this comment, what does it have to do with the current conversation.  Did you post this in the wrong thread or something.