Because having better hardware than 6/7 year old consoles is apparently praise

Anyhow, the GPU contribution is not very efficient for AI, but it is a lot more for physics engines, so if well used, it should help overall.
And to manage more units at a time, having a lot more RAM should help a lot more than what a slightly slower CPU could hamper.

BTW, I find hard to believe the CPU is less powerful than PS3 and XB360 ones, even entry level ones should be a little more powerful, by now, maybe it is a little more powerful, but having to manage the tablet controller too, the end result could be that a little bit less power is made available to the game.

I'm doubting he ws trying to saw less powerful and was meaning to say slower, as in lower clock rate.  Which would make complete sense.

Oh well, in that case, a slower clocked, but newer generation CPU could be a LOT faster than a faster clocked older one. But then, does this thread make any sense? (*) And shouldn't "professional" developers know that clock rate isn't a reliable index of performance, except than inside the same generation of the same architecture, and only Intel tried to make people believe this bullshit, just to have it backfiring when Pentium III couldn't have its clock increased anymore? (Kudos to them, anyway, when they managed to rip users off a second time with the P4, faster clocked than the Athlon, but actually slower than it).

(*) Actually yes, the "deer God" off-topic is totally worth the thread anyway!   

Which has had me wondering about the translation or overall validity of this problem since I first read it.

Well the tekken 2 director said the clock speed is slower about 2 months ago now, so no doubt this is the same scenario but badly translated.

What peopel forget is that 360 and PS4 where clocked high so developers could take advantage of it as it lacked in other areas at the time.

A game that is programmed to rely on clock speed will obviously need to be rewritten to utlise the functionality of what a new CPU offers.