His thesis are debunked, they deliver now PC ports at day 1. Bioware is just a bad devoloper, their games were always weak looking and had bad performance imo

Thats because they are just bad devolopers, it was probably a last minute decision to port it to PC but looking at EA all their PC ports run great @day1

That's not the alternative that's likely to happen. It will probably release around 2019.

You can run them, but most likely with more or less strongly reduced settings. I'm not saying you can't run the games with older hardware, my point was that to replicate the performance of a console 1:1, a PC needs more power to achieve that goal.

Both SFV and TW3 are also a bit special examples. SFV istn't very hardware hungry anyway, so it doesn't need to tap as deep into the power reserves of a console, and The Witcher series was previously PC exclusive, which results in having better optimisation for PC out of the box than most other multiplats out there.

I could run them on my Radeon HD 5770 too, but the experience would definitly be below of what would be achieved on a console, all while they have similar brute power than both of those graphic cards

6 years is to long since this gen did not start out with high end hardware. A new system after 4 years and then 1-2 years of decent multi-platform after that is probably the most that this generation of hardware is good for.

Probably no console will start out with high-end hardware anymore. When the 360 and the PS3 came out, high-end GPUs had less than 100W TDP, now they consume 250W TDP and above. This is way above the total limit of an console, and that must include all the other hardware, too. Unless there is some limit imposed on PC hardware consumption, the consoles will never be able to fully catch up.

I do agree that this can result in shorter console gens, but we'll have to wait if this really happens or the consoles find something unique to them that will allow them to extend their lifetimes beyond the raw power limitations.

I don't know if that is so true today as it was last generation. With an i3 and an equivalent GPU (~ 1800 Gflops) you get equivalent/better performance. 

They don't, yet getting acceptable performance is left up to the user.

Elite Dangerous runs between 30fps and 7fps on my laptop and can go down to 0.5fps while leaving 80% of my CPU unused, as well as 80% of my ram causing it to take upto 20 seconds again to load a system map again it just loaded 10 seconds ago. You need a big overhead compared to consoles to keep the performance stable, developers simply don't have the time to optimize for PC hardware configurations.

It would be a gigantic pain in the ass to optimize for multiple console hardware specs, hence gens are 6 years long on average to keep this multiplatform stuff under control. Consoles are build on the premise to provide a cheap hardware solution that can be used much more efficiently as a comparale PC build, by the virtue of having 1 fixed balanced hardware spec.

We already have PCs, why the need to turn consoles into them.  Key advantage of PC is flexibility and now also in small form factor through Steam boxes, key advantage of consoles is stability and nowadays function as a cheap multimedia center as well.

Bear in mind that developers need time to figure out how to squeeze out the performance out of the consoles. The games of the first 1-2 years generally don't dive too much into this as they haven't figured it out totally yet. It's also visible in the video to a point: The closer to the release of the video the games came, the more the Pentium experienced troubles and framedrops. The i3 was still unaffected at the point the video was made, but that doesn't mean that this year's blockbusters will run as fine again on the i3.

The main problem of the consoles hardware-wise is the CPU. The Jaguar was meant for Ultrathins (Ultrabook is trademarked by Intel, so AMD has to name theirs Ultrathin) and sacrificed performance for low power consumption. Add to this it's very low clock speed and you get a pretty bad choice for a Console CPU. I'm pretty sure the GPU needs to help out on some CPU calculations, which is pretty bad performance-wise. If the developers can figure out how to get past this problem I don't think i3+750Ti will be able to keep up as easely as before

What are your laptops specifications? For most games I get a consistent 50% across all of my four cores and my GPU (r9 280x) tends to use 60-95% of its performance depending on the game and how demanding the scene is.  

This has much less to do with optimization on an open-platform, and much more to do with developers still not getting a hang of multithreading when programming their games (in other words it is a programming limitation.) If the PS4/XBO didn't have low-end CPU's and we were able to measure how much the CPU is being used at any one point, I think we would see a similar phenomenon. 

Anyway, the last video I posted shows that you really don't need a big overhead. An i3 and GTX 750 Ti matches consoles quite fine in visuals and performance, and the GTX 750 TI has similar theoretical performance to the PS4's GPU.