So actually the game is poorly optimised on both consoles, just less poorly optimised on Xb one. When framerate performance is this crappy on 2 versions of a game then you don't use "smoother" to describe the difference, you say "less shitty". It's like saying jelly beans made with fruit juice for flavour are more healthy than jelly beans with artificial flavouring. No they aren't, they are just less unhealthy. Both are still bad for you.

Is it worth sacrificing that 1fps bottom end for the higher res? Tough question.

This game is pretty much a North Korean wet dream simulator. lol

1fps bottom end lead, but 3fps average lead according to DF's tests.

Oh well, that changes things completely.

3fps can mean the difference between 30fps and 27fps, many gamers would find that more noticeable and detrimental than 1080p vs 900p.

It doesn't matter really beacuse the game is shit.
Even if it had great performance it would still be a shitty game.
It's crytek afterall.

Further tests by Digital Foundry on a low end PC suggest that the game is CPU-bound, which would explain why it runs poorly on consoles, with their low-clocked Jaguar CPUs.

Can't infer anything about the performance characteristics on consoles from the PC version ... 

They'll be very disappointed about their findings once they test out the game on a GTX 1080 with the 6700K ... 

The budget PC isn't delivering higher framerates than the X1 counterpart despite having an arguably much more well-rounded CPU ... 

I'm certainly no expert myself, but the guys at DF are, and if that's what their tests are showing, I'll take their word for it.