The only difference is PPC vs X86. Anyone that used a compiler once in their lifes knows that this doesn't make any difference, because:

A) It's the compiler's job.

B) It's you job because you are writing the assembly. Anyway, it doesn't make difference, you will just use different, but reasonably similar instruction sets, since modern CISC CPUs have a lot of RISC concepts implemented for better performance.

PS360 and X1/PS4 used the same kind of GPUs, so the comparison won't be needed here. Everyone saying that X86 makes the consoles become PCs doesn't have a slight clue of what programming is.

It's working for me. But I guess the only good visuals are on Nintendo games in your book, right?

For one thing neither PS4 or XBox One are what you call "off the shelf", because you can't just go into a store and by an APU like that.
In the case of PS4 you also can't go and buy sticks or a stick of high speed memory for both your CPU and GPU to access at once, nor can your buy an APU with an additional BUS that can bypass your GPU's cache.
These chips are by no means "off the shelf" parts, they're PC like in nature of their core processing elements, with funky tweaks to make it easier for the developers to play around with, but that doesn't mean they instantly no everything that can be done with them, those funky tweaks also opens up the scope of maximizing each system's potential.

The fact of the matter is that features are still present in both systems that need to be utilized to maximize the resources usable in each box.
Early generation games aren't properly parallelizing their code across all CPU Cores to make the most of GPU resources.
The GPUs can handle AI, Physics and Audio, along with Graphics code and fiber based rendering to make the most out of every Nano Second of GPU time is still in it's infancy.
Engines aren't anywhere near what you would call efficient yet.

X86 is much younger than RISC is, people have misconstrued things the other way around, thinking that X86 is the more understood code base or that there's no room for creation of new processing methods, that's absolutely wrong, we've also never had a generation where the majority of the system architecture in a video games generation is using X86.

We're early in the generation, things will most definitely improve, people have barely seen a fraction of what's possible yet.

Yeah this is true, I think maybe playstation1 was the only other console to demonstrate the same level of progress seen throughout the generation as the 360/PS3. 

So pretty much like it's always been with consoles. Takes a few years for developers to "tap the true potential."

Here's a different image from the same fight.

Also, you clearly never played Beyond: Two Souls if you think it "isn't a game".

Its all PC parts! You can get most of them from the shelf (except for the CPU). Maybe they're a bit modified, but they're almost PC's in console form. And yes, the 360 and PS3 didn't use archeitecure found on PC's it was their own thing. Especially with the cell, it made early 360 and PS3 look like crap since their hardware couldn't be utilized properly. It really wasn't until around 2008-2009 that games actually started to use the hardware properly.

I hope they use the power for more than graphics. I mean graphics were already pretty great on PS3. It had the power of the Cell which PS4 is clearly missing.

Well bigtakilla I haven't yet seen a game on Wii U that looks as good as GOW: A. Maybe Bayonetta 2 would have looked that good if it was 720p30fps though.

It doesn't make any difference. The 360 used an architecture very similar to current consoles and it also said said improvements, even on exclusive titles like Halo and Gears. 360 used a PC GPU, as the PS3 did. The split architecture for the PS3 was actually more similar to PCs than the unified pool found on 360, PS4 and X1.

What held the PS3 was its crappy GPU, not the Cell. They used to Cell basically to offload the GPU so they could get around the idiot decision they made. That probably explains why Sony ditched Nvidia for AMD this gen (MS did that one gen earlier because they also got screwed by Nvidia and in their case it even made them discontinue the OG Xbox).

If you understand the architecture in such depth, please clarify in what the 360 is less similar to a PC than the PS4/X1. Of course, be aware that I will debunk any technically flawed argument.