@gumpstation --- its not lie. killzone on ps4 multiplayer is good example of that. i also own a 51 inch tv andboth consoles. i have some of the games that CGI has posted as comparisons and i don't see any noticeable difference without DF pointing out which was a different case to the games mentioned in the OP. Heck my oldest brother has a 100inch projector and hes all the games metnioned by cgi qulaity and he can't tell differenc. i even can't tell on shi huge projector screen. I was referring to the ps4 and xbox one games that cgi psoted as comparison not the 360 vs ps3 ones

This one is actually very easy to figure out because you just have to look at the specs. XBox One vs PS4 gap is larger than 2 Xbox 360. Its almost the size of 2 Wii Us. So yeah. You can be very objective when answering this question.

@gumpstation -- i have them all ps4, xbox one and wii u. I have no loyalty to either machines and i buy games based on fun rather then graphics and also at the time i want to buy which one is cheaper .

PS3 vs 360 where 360 had the better quality games wasn't a hardware power issue, it was an optimisation issue for PS3. Ps4 vs Xb one is simply a hardware power issue.

So the generations are different as to why games are not exactly equal in quality. Also it's not only a fps and res matter this gen. There are other performance issues as well. And even if it was, the fact that xb one often can't reach 1080p locked 30fps (for example) means if the hardware was pushed to that res and locked fps the game would suffer significantly in other areas.

The difference in terms of graphics potential between PS4 vs Xbox One is greater than that of PS3 vs Xbox 360.

Note that I said graphics potential. The PS3's Cell was very hard to work with. The architecture was better suited to a workload a server would handle, not a games console. Using the Cell to power the PS3 was like using a jet engine to power a car. Yes, the potential was there, and it had insane numbers, but it really wasn't practical. And some developers, such as Naughty Dog with The Last of Us, showed us just what it was capable of when used right.

There's a combination of reasons behind the percieved difference this time around being less. The first, is diminishing returns. We've gotten past the point where, double the power doesn't mean we'll notice image quality twice as good. The second is the media. I remember hearing all bashing the PS3 got because it ran games at a 10% lower resolution, or had a framerate a bit less stable. Fast forward to 2014, and now we're being told that the difference "isn't that big" or "You won't notice it"

And two others made reference to it afterwards as though they took it seriously.  My comment was to stop that.

Trust me, I would have no problem quoting you if it was only intended for you.

The difference between native resolution and upscaled softness is way bigger then some grass not being rendered. If nobody told you there's supposed to be more grass you wouldn't know. Upscaler softness however is always there. Maybe some people are just used to how upscaling looks that they're not seeing it or actually preferring it. Like tests between mp3 and uncompressed music that had people prefer mp3... It's just what you're used too, doesn't mean there is no difference.

Ofcourse looking at screenshots in a browser on a laptop or tablet is not going to show the benefit of natively rendered video. Plus most of those devices aren't or can't be calibrated properly in the first place. Which is another area where people initially prefer the botched oversatured, artifically sharpened, overbright, high contrast settings that are used in stores to catch your attention.

Anyway last gen ps3 usually got the better shadow filtering and lighting being closer to he pc version, while 360 won in texture quality, resolution (albeit much less difference) and more stable frame rate. This gen it's all one sided.

I thought ";)" was sufficient to denote that I was joking around.

Nope, I dont think its substatial unless you show me. When ever you get done saying what you saying you cannot show any pic or video of a RECENT game that shows any type of visual difference like those pictures are showing in the OP. Not gonna waste time even debating anymore until I see some links, pics or vidoes now go for it.

I rest my case.