No, as always I assert multi platform releases aren't as optimized / tailor made as titles made for one specific set of hardware. Hence you see the stumbles when Sony 1st party titles get PC ports. And why it's still so hard to emulate the ps3 :/

Total CPU performance is important, but in the end there's always one process / thread that maxes out holding the rest back. Hence it's so difficult to fully utilize multi core processors as the other cores can't help the thread that does most of the heavy lifting.

If you manage to code your game using all 7 cores to most of their potential (1 is reserved for the OS), it won't simply run the same or better on a faster 6 core CPU. Ryzen 5600 isn't that much faster that you can simply combine 2 threads to run on one core and be faster, unless those 2 threads were only utilizing 60% or so of the cores they were running on. Of course games have many more threads and load balancing should be part of the engine if not done by the OS already.

For example here from when I was playing err tracing bugs in FS2020

111 threads, yet one thread had a particular bug (tracked down to a conflict in overlapping controlled airspace areas, location dependent)
A faster cpu would power through better, splitting that thread up would half the issue (fixing the bug of course was the real fix)

And here you see one core (or half of it) is close to maxed out while overall CPU use is only 35%

And as suggested I used that to make sure the game remains GPU limited for a more stable experience.
Actually here I dropped the render resolution down to see how fast it could go on a mobile CPU.

Very hard game to 'optimize' as the demands are so different depending on where you are. Big airports are very heavy on GPU

While going further North or South increases the demand on the CPU due to how the 'cells' are organized (Data stored in Mercator projection)

So I wonder why is dynamic resolution not used more on PC? Or maybe it is nowadays? Last demanding titles I played on my laptop were Halo Infinite and Forza Horizon and both didn't have dynamic resolution options. Just dynamic frame rate :p Actually I played Sea of Thieves not long ago, that ran pretty poorly on my laptop (The thing is long overdue for replacement I know)

Digital Foundry guys don't think there's a need for Pro consoles, and are pretty sure they are not gonna happen.

The biggest issue is Zen's 2 lack of CPU power for 60 fps modes in newer games, they also mention you can't double GPU performance on the same die size on current AMD tech.

PS3 emulation is better than Xbox 360 emulation.

Emulation is generally, just hard. - But PS3 emulation has come a long way with many games being perfectly playable.

Those some same threads exist on console.

Things used to be different when we needed to translate/interpret/chop up instructions to translate PowerPC code to x86, but... That hasn't been an issue in a couple of generations now.

Not really how that works.
Thread scheduling isn't an issue.

Either way, Ryzen 7000 series is upwards of double the per-core performance of the Ryzen 3000 series, making your point moot.

Flight Simulator is held back by it's engine, not because of consoles, it was a PC title first, remember.

Dynamic Frame Rate? You mean, just disabling V-Sync right?

Dynamic resolution is found in many games, but we need to remember that the PC is a far more hardware rich than consoles, so there is simply less of a need.

Err weren't you saying Ryzen 5600. Sure if the 7000 series has double the performance than no issues using 4 cores.

Every program is held back by its engine and yes FS2020 was a PC title first. Very noticeable when it got ported to Series consoles causing a lot of problems and downgrades on the PC version of the game. The biggest issue was reducing the memory footprint which Asobo achieved by reducing the draw distance and culling data from memory much faster causing stutters when panning the camera next to far closer draw distances / lower quality with PG data. Night lighting still looks much better on the release version which was already downgraded from the beta version.

Dynamic frame rate as opposed to delivering a locked frame rate with variable resolution. Of course PC can benefit from dynamic resolution as well if you prefer steady fps. Not everyone has the luxury to use op hardware to power through the 'dips' :p

And FS2020 is mostly held back by being build on FSX architecture. A lot of legacy code and systems are still present in the game. Anyway the big 'change' from PC only to XBox plus PC shows optimizing for multiple different (even though only slightly different) systems is not easy and takes away time from optimizing it for one system. This time they finished the PC version first, then had to make a lot of changes to make it PC+console. And since in this case they wanted to go forward with one unified version, the PC version suffered as result. (In visual quality that is, fps got better and memory requirements reduced)

They're making minor additions to the already existing engine. Unlike unreal engine with great changes every iteration, 

That is highly unlikely, but neither of us really knows. You talk out of your ass, just to make a point. The only difference is that Epic announces all their engine changes, because they license the engine, while Bethesda does not. But I bet you, that Bethesdas engine gets a lot of code changes as well. If you want to disprove, don't bother with marketing bla, bring me the changesets from their respective version control systems.

All you need to do is open your eyes. Look at the animation, the fire and explosion effects from xbox 360 era. Look at the animations.  Look how pale in comparison the night club scene looks in starfield compared to last gen cyberpunk 77. The citadel with its cut and past same tree  splattered all over the place, floors and high ground..

Engines are a lot more than what we can see with our eyes, unless you're a developer who actually works with Creation Engine 2 then you don't know what you're talking about in how big of an upgrade it is overall compared to Creation Engine 1. That aside, if you actually watched the Digital Foundry video then you would see how large of an upgrade Starfield is in many aspects and Digital Foundry was largely praise towards Starfield with their main criticism around facial animations.

Here is what Josh Sawyer, an actual developer who worked with Creation Engine and Unreal Engine has said about CE in the past.

I agree, Pokémon Sw/Sh had better tree textures, Starfield was clearly designed for gen 6 hardware. Don’t support this crap!

I'd also like to bring to light, for shits and giggles about this engine talk and AI:

Bethesda's wanted system in Skyrim actually remembers the player and what they did, and what they will be charged for (items stolen will also be removed, so that is stored in memory).

Meanwhile, if I commit a crime in Cyberpunk, the police forget I exist after a quick speedy getaway, and then all is magically forgotten, and no charges are pressed from there on.

There's also no police chases or the other mechanics that 2077 promised, or that other games already executed years ago, from companies like R*/bethesda, that CDPR couldn't get right/do.

I wish people on here would stop holding 2077 so damn high, because the only good thing about it is it's looks. The game still doesn't feel fully alive, and it's story was incredibly watered down from the board game's lore.