As long as it is a rock solid frame rate, I don't care what the actual rate is. It is only when it jerks around that I start to notice it.

Hahaha shows how much you know.

For instance the PS3 at the time had the equivalent of an i5 and a high end GPU.  When the PS4 launched it had the equivalent of an i3 and a high-end GPU (However it has far more RAM for its time than before).

But all of this doesn't matter because you clearly didn't read what I said - The bulk of my post talked about how developers are sacrificing resolution for extra effects (Effects you can't see well because the resolution is too low).

Furthermore, I am not sure how you have missed that some of the more poorly optimized games do in fact keep a better framerate on X1 like AC Unity and Project Cars.

That still does not make your statements true. These "effects" you are mentioning are calculated mostly by the GPU as well. The comparison with PS3 is moot. The theoretical strength of the PS3 was never used and it's not even close to that of a current i5. The current console CPUs can't even keep up with a current i3 but that is still more than enough to run the games. 

Current games are not bottlenecked by the CPU of the consoles, period. That's why developers are offloading the GPU by reducing the resolution. The CPU rarely even come in play. No matter how weak the CPU is, the GPU is comparably even weaker since it's on the chip and can't even dream to reach the power of a dedicated GPU. There is enough proof in the myriad of games that run better on PS4 at the same resolution or abou the same at an even higher resolution despite the PS4 having a slightly weaker CPU.

Again, care to explain why reducing the resolution gives the games a performance boost if they are actually bottlenecked by the CPU? If what you say is true, reducing the resolution would do nothing.

Every game that is not reliant on heavy physics or countless individual and are not poorly optimized (i.e. 99% of all games) will run into the GPU bottleneck before the CPU gives up. It doesn't matter how weak the CPU of the consoles is, the GPU is comparatively many times weaker than it.

Right, because all the FUD we saw on this specific forum over how "unbroken and unplayable" Fallout 4 is, is an accurate representation of how the online gaming community in general reacts when a game has framerate issues versus the audacity to release a game below 1080p.

Not sure what the heck Halo 5, which has sold and reviewed quite well since you're asking, has to do with how important 60fps is to me but I'm just gonna stop reading there.

Most of the games I play are 30fps and I am ok with it. So I prefer better gfx.

720P 60fps and 1080 30fps would be great but I am not sure devs can do that on console so easily sadly

Those comparisons were the ones I was thinking of when I said in my original post that I can't passively/visually see the diffrence between stable 30 FPS and 60 FPS. I tried to do a blind test when I first found the website and kept guessing 30 FPS was 60 FPS (perhaps because that's what my eyes are more used to).

This makes me think that my personal ability to visually dicern more frames ends somewhere in the 24-40 range (I did notice the diffrence in The Hobbit and do notice it on 60 FPS youtube streams that show the streamers as well)

It's not a lie, and I'm not decieving myself, I just honestly can't really tell the diffrence visually.

Now while playing it's another story, I can definitely 'feel' higher framerates, and for some games it helps a lot.

As someone else pointed out, 60FPS is something that more enhances gameplay than visuals. So being able to actually "see" it in a video is not so important when compared to feeling it when you're playing, which as you said is quite apparent.

Quality-Does it even matter?

/thread.

I can't see the difference.

Also, my eyes are closed.