Well, Zen won't be available on time for products in November 2015. If Microsoft and Sony had gambled on former promises of AMD, there would be a bad awakening.

The Zen-APUs are now promised for 2016 (and that could change again if problems should occur):

Home consoles are usually launched in the 4th quarter to have a good start (christmas spendings + highest output of AAA-titles), so Microsoft & Sony would have waited 36 months instead of 24 months with their 8th gen consoles... perhaps even 48 months if the Zen-APUs go in mass production at the end of 2016 instead of summer 2016.

Guess why I stopped replying to you in the other thread? Becaue you clearly lack the ability to read and understand text at least when it comes to what I write. (never care much about your reply to others so I dont know if that phenomenom is exclusive to me or not)

You disgreed with something I never said. So actually wasted both  your and my time.

And you do it again now lol and use my "super obvious oversimplification" of shaders as an argument against me wow. Want some kind of Nobel Prize for that now?
Seriously replying with something like "You definition of shaders show that you don't know how a graphics pipeline work." to a sentence like " which are little tricks that make ugly things appear less ugly" shows me that you always nitpick some nonsense and write a f*ing 10000 page essay on that subject but the main points I say you dont even disagree with lol. Like shaders make things look better than they are.  They can add the illusion of more detail by making things appear more detailed even tho the detail is just on the "texture"(please dont write another 100000 word essay on what a texture is for gods sake) and non-existant in form of polygons.

I never mentioned Ryse nor The Order so why even mention them? (I also never said that YOU talked about Metro 2033 I just used it as example of how blocky the game is. Yet you AGAIN twist it so that it looks I made a mistake lol)
You said "ITS METRO LAST LIGHT NOT METRO 2033". 
So you have some "point" that helps your argument? Actually reading what people say would help you much more especially because you would not waste our time so much.
And NO its NOT about Metro Last Light because I want to talk about Metro 2033. I dont care if you mention Last Light.
I also talked about Crysis and then you mentioned Metro Last Light. How would you like it if I now say "No its not about Metro Last Light its about Crysis"? Stop cherrypicking already.

Do us a favor and stop replying to what I say as long as you dont even want to read the text or try to understand.  Thank you

we will see an zen playstation, fall 2018 the ps5...they need a short life for the ps4 they timed it realy badly, right into a stagnation phase.

thats why old cpus. a bigger first gen i5 is still enough to easyly beat the ps4 when combined with a modern gpu.

If Sony and MS had waited until this year to relese their systems, this would have happened:

-PS3 and 360 would have sold 90m each already.
-WiiU would have sold a couple million more and have a couple more multiplats, but nothing spectacular.
-Vita would have sold a couple thousand units less, sales related to the remote play.
-We would have a ton of remasters as launch titles.
-Both PS4 and the XBone would be more powerfull, but still far from PC standards. The gen could have lasted one or two years more.
-People would be impatient, lots of flamewars over the overdue systems.
-The OUYA would have dominated the market by 200:1, and it would have gotten the title of 8th wonder of the world, ended all war and created a cure for cancer using puppy love.

It's amazing that you actually wrote a reply to my post with this size and basically didn't had a counter argument to anything I wrote and just claimed that your entire post "didn't mean what was wrote on it". It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Just this:

"Like shaders make things look better than they are.  They can add the illusion of more detail by making things appear more detailed even tho the detail is just on the "texture"

Show that you don't have a clue about how a game works. Modern GPUs are based on shaders. Remove shaders and you will end up with polygons with textures slapped on it. No light, no shadows, nothing. They aren't a "detail", they are pretty much one of the main actors here.

What your posts show to me and everyone is that you love do discuss technical matters that you don't understand, trying to fit things to your agenda and just gets mad when anyone points you lack of basic knowledge about the topic. Despite that, I didn't disagreed with something you didn't said. You claimed that Crysis 1 looks better than Crysis 3 because it is "more complex in geometry" and that Crysis 2/3 have only some "illusory" shaders. I said that Crysis 3 looks better than 2 that looks better than 1, and posted a reasonable argument for that. You don't have anything to counter so you just get mad. Keep you arguments limited to topics that you actually have the knowledge to discuss.

Crysis 1 was made with only PCs in mind, hence its enormous scope.

Crysis 2 and 3 were made to run on consoles with 512MB of RAM, hence the simpler, smaller environments.

Almost any game can run on almost any console if you downgrade it enough. With Crysis 2 and 3, they designed with console specs in mind to make the process easier, that's all.

That doesn't make sense if the first game actually ran with the same scope on the consoles. Why would they downgrade the sequels if the consoles handled the first game just fine (except by a lesser degree of destructable enviroments, just like BF games did on PS360)? They did run the first game with 512 MB of RAM, so what's the problem for a sequel with the same scope?

If Crysis 1 was PC-only, that would make sense. But it isn't. It is on PS360. You could argue that if Crysis 2/3 had the same scope than C1, that would mean that consoles couldn't handle a bigger scope than C1. But they actually decreased the scope of a game that already ran on consoles just fine. The explanation is simple. Crysis 1 was a graphics benchmark. Any new Crysis game had to be. So they simplified the enviroments on Crysis 2 to focus resources on a smaller area, lower the budget and get an impressive result. That's noticeable if you look at Crysis 3. It isn't much better looking than the second game, because they had similar enviroments. But Crysis 2 looks WAY better than the first game.

duplicate

Like I said, to make the process easier.

Crysis 1 had to undergo severe re-engineering to work on PS3/360, and even then it ran badly.

By designing 2 and 3 with a more limited scope, it was less work to get it running on consoles. Less work = less cost.

You talk like Crysis 2 and 3 actually were running well on consoles. Severe reenginering? It was a quick late port, it wouldn't even go for full price or get a retail release. A lot of work != cheap digital game.

Anyway, I think a lot of guys here will keep the "consoles are downgrading PC games" agenda, even if it consoles actually do the vast majority of sales that pump the money that makes all these titles viable to begin with.