I agree that they could get better by coding, but as Cerny said, time to triangle in PS4 is 1 to 2 months instead of 6 to 12 months with PS3. The architecture now is x86 just like the PC and PS4 has a unified memory pool, so PS4 is easier to program and very close to PC. The API is closer to metal, but Mantle and DX12 are getting closer to metal too. I dont expect a big jump in performance in years to come as PS3 software did. It was really hard to use all the architecture in the Cell processor. This APUs are much easier and PC like. The only thing that can be a real deal would be computing with the GPU, but i wonder if that can take too many GPU resources and kill performance. Also Battlefield 4 devs told that CPU was at 95% with PS4, An Intel I7 4770 CPU runs the game at 30%, so not all codes run at 100%.  if the CPU is not holding back performance, why heavy games run at 900p 30fps when a HD 7850-70 with a good CPU can run easilly at 1080p?

Your missing alot of the picture ... It is not only CPUs that have instruction set architectures. GPU's do too! The cell processor was worth shit for the most part but it did come handy for one thing and that was to alleviate vertex processing bottlenecks from the GPU. Not everything gets a benefit from GPU acceleration. I highly doubt that many of the tasks will be off loaded to the GPU because the workloads are already different as it is. BTW a 7850 will only net you 35 FPS when your at 1080p on ultra whereas with the PS4 it's 900p on ultra running at 55 FPS. 

Yeah, no doubt about it...it's just that we had countless threads like this one in last 2 years, hence the dead horse pic - there's nothing new here that anyone interested in hardware doesn't already know...

Im not saying how much will be off loaded to the GPU, I really have no idea about that, The only things i know is that the GPU can issue 64 compute commands instead of 2 and that Cerny says that in the future the GPU can alliviate the CPU. That said, if the GPU cannot do that very well and you have a weak CPU, then it is a serious bottleneck. I saw comparisions of battlefield at 900p with PC and PS4 graphics are more blurry and with less effects. If it runs at 55 fps, then maybe they just cut off some particles and resolution to make that happen. But Watch Dogs will run at 900p and 30 fps, not quite what i expected, still, maybe a Hd 7850 on PC cant handle that either, we will find out soon. You have a good point there with battlefield at 55 FPS.

Is this some sort of joke post? Don't get it twisted, the power difference is a lot. Nintendo makes games for their hardware and thats that. They do the best the can and they do good work. But BF4 running on the PS4 and the WiiU will not be the same thing. Not by a mile. 

Don't get me wrong, the power gap isn't why third party devs aren't bothering to make games on the WiiU, they just feel that there isn't a amrket there for them. Just look at fisrt gen PS4 titles like KZ:SF or infamous, and first gen XBO titles like Ryse. In the entire lifetime of the WiiU, you will NEVER see anything that can touch those games in visual fidelity or performance. Not to mention 5th gen titles. 

Atlas, graphics and performance doesn't a good game make so my advice to wiiU gamers is; Pls, just keep away from the performance arguments and stick to the game arguments. All that matters is that you enjoy the game you are playing.

Absolutely true statement, on that same token people forget that graphics and performance don't automatically make a bad game, either.  Having the extra resources to play around with is never a bad thing.  I think devs sometimes get obsessed with using 'everything' though, and lose site of their original target.

Every time someone speaks about better graphics some idiot say that it doesnt matter because that doesnt make a good game. Its like somebody discussing the power of his car V8 engine and someone come and says that it doesnt matter because every car can take you where you want and you can enjoy the ride. Two different topics always mixed up. One thing are the graphics and other thing is how good is the game as an experience or playability. One doesnt exclude the other.

The fact here is consoles were NEVER stronger than PCs to begin with when windows back in the days started gaining traction. I don't think cerny has made a specific statement about how the GPU can alleviate the CPU bottlnecks but rather he just said that it can assist in compute. I'm pretty sure that the GPU is also capable of issuing lots draw commands themselves from one procedure call but it's the developers choice to implement them which helps alleviate the CPU bottleneck. Watch dogs is probably one of the most demandng next generation games as it practically excludes anything less than an HD 5770! This is assuming that the minimum requirements will net you 720p at 30 FPS with the lowest settings. 

There is so much you are not getting here. I numbered points in your post so my explanation doesn't seem to be all over the place.

1. Time to triangle means how much time it takes to even get your engine up and running on a system. Not how much time it takes to build your game or clean up your code. 
2. From above, the bump doesn't come from being able to run run your engine on the hardware, it comes rather; from optimizing your code. This doesn't just mean having more efficient code, it means writing code that takes advantage of the specific hardware. Something that no multiplat game is doing right now.
3. Yes, and X86 means that a lot of the code as cross compatible. But Console architecture is very very very different from that of PCs. PCs basically brute force their way through everything. Thats because of the ridiculous amount of overhead in them that no matter how close to the metal they are, the fact that they stil run on an OS that must support legacy services means that they are always working with one hand tied behind their backs. Maybe I have already said this (or maybe i thought about it but didnt type it), think of consoles as formula one cars. Designed through and through for one purpose and one purpose alone. Then think of PCs as Bugatti Veyrons, with an option to strap a rocket to its back if you want.
4. Of the 18 active CUs in the PS4, only 6 of them allow for GPU compute. So every one that you use for GPU compute is one less you have to use for your graphics engine. 
5. Ignore them, devs say that kinda shit all the time. You need proof, just look at BF4, then look at KZ:SF and then infamous SS. Look at The Order, then wait and see the stuff that will blow your mind away in a few weeks at E3. Apparently 95% means different things for different devs. Besides, you also need to understand that every multiplat game you are seeing in this first year or so is noting but a direct port of the game running on a PC. Third party devs have not started making games specifically for the hardware in consoles. 
6. Short answer, read above. Not optimized for consoles. 

This is to me something that a lot of people convinently forget.

I see hardware as a potential kind of thing. The PS4 has the potential to make better games than the One or Wii U, as it can have more stuff happening on the screen, better effects, more dynamic gameplay, etc, but it all depends on whether devs can take advantage of that power to make good games. The original Xbox was the most powerful, but its library paled compared to the Gamecube and the PS2.