Offtopic: All your responses etc are really biased. I think we need to start a forum topic to make a choice in voting you for King Xbox!
I have a question for you, can you please proof Ryse is graphically much better then Killzone Shadow Falls? This because I think they both are graphical great games  (gameplay and bugs are not really very good of both games) both on different aspects. Ryse especially on the face details and movement of the characters are very detailed imo but I wouldn't expect differntly for such a CGI game with not really open world and low frame rate, Killzone Shadow falls facial details are still very good (not as detailed as Ryse, but still very good) and if you consider the world is partial open world(not completely, but more free roaming space then you have with Ryse) and has a very stable high frame rate, with very detailed enviroments. Both have shown pretty well what is possible with this next gen, but are both midcore games IMO!

On topic: Maybe I missed something but I can't remember if the CPU of PS4 is official confirmed so going on the rumors I can only take the following in account:
PS4 CPU: 1,6Ghz and Xbox one CPU: 1,75Ghz

That's a whole lot of text baes on one graph :) I really wouldn't read that much into it until we know more about this "test". Again, especially the comparison with the i7 seems off and odd, it should run circles around PS4's core. We have no information on devkit-revision, environment testing and what this test also relies on (memory bandwidth, cpu clock, float<->int...).

What a ridiculous thing to have a discussion over. A CPU is not the bottleneck in a console. It is the absolute farthest things from a bottleneck. CPU's are fast, and they almost never get used fully. 99/100 times you won't see a difference in performance if you upgrade your CPU.

The CPU is the thing which performs calculations, but the bottleneck is bringing things TO THE CPU!!! Thus, things like memory, cache, solid state drives, system bus, and etc, ALL OF THOSE are designed with the sole purpose of bringing things to the CPU faster.

They pretty much hit the ceiling with CPU usage last gen. It's a non-issue this gen.

A couple things here.

1. How does a game releasing maybe a year after a console launch possibly (yes possibly cause all you're doing here is guessing) looking better than a launch game prove anything, again? I mean Gears 1 looked substantially better than Resistance, did that suddenly mean that nothing on PS3 would ever top a 360 game again?

2. Why the hell are you trying to downplay Corrinne Yu's role so much? This is just ridiculous, with comments like Brothers in Arms and Broderlands never won graphics awards, look at how many games Gearbox put out during that time and compare it to 343i's output, that is not even mentioning how Borderlands was going for a distinct artstyle and not uber highend graphics. Fact is Yu developed Halo 4s lighting engine which played a huge role in it looking as good as it did.

3. Explain to me, how Halo 5 is going to blow everything on PS4 out of the water, if Halo 4, while arguably being able to compete, was still in the general opinion being topped by several PS3 titles? When on 360 multiplats often looked, albeit slightly, better than on PS3, showing how difficult the PS3 was to develop for, while on PS4/XB1 multiplats from the start mostly look better on PS4 thus meaning the PS4 is alot easier to develop for? When Corrinne Yu, which played a huge role in Halo 4s graphics, now works for Naughty Dog a studio that is famous for pushing the limit on graphics?

Last gen you had the 360 that was alot easier than the PS3 to develop for, which was not that much weaker than the PS3 and still PS3 exclusives came out on top graphics wise at the end of the generation.

This gen you have a PS4 that is alot easier to develop for and also stronger than the X1 and you expect the outcome to be the other way round?

Can't we just agree to both ban selnor and ethomaz with their stupid constant dick measuring thread derailing bullshit. So the other people can have a nice, mature discussion. Sigh

I agree all in favour say Aye

Except not. CPU is incredibly important in a gaming environment.

That's almost 50% difference in frame-rate there with the same graphics card when using a better processor. The AMD rig even loses to much less powerful cards thanks to the underpowered CPU. Considering PS4/XOne CPU isn't anywhere near a A10-5750M/4600M, I can barely imagine how much it's bottlenecking the graphics card in those new consoles.

IT could be that this benchmark is more dependant on memory bandwidth?

Other than the memory architecture, the CPU cores are the same, comparing their respective performance is affected by either memory speed or clock speed (2ghz compared to 1.6 is not extreme, they will scale to it no problem).

Surely, that benchmark reflect one of many systems running in a game engine, but in closed systems we rarely have a chance to directly compare a very specific aspect of performance, one that is dependant on only one aspect... lo and behold, the single that was until now though to have been the single performance point where the xb1 could have topped the PS4! this is certainly worth a conversation, without mudding it in other aspects of system performance... or should everyone shut up about it not to embarass the XB1 buyers/warriors?

Why warned? Xbox One has a tablet CPU, low bandwidth system memory and a GPU with 128bit bus and only 16 ROPS. This has been discussed over and over on the forum. I guess I should have elaborated a bit. But I have done so in other posts on multiple occasions. It's not like I offended another person. We are talking about an object.

Infamous isn't out yet so how do you know?