Here is one of the last games that targeted only PC hardware and imo the difference to the console version is pretty staggering at least compared to most multiplatform games of today. Crysis 1 was released in 2007 to boot, only two years after the X360 came out. PC games haven't really shown much better graphics since then. The best scenes in Crysis 1 are still pretty damn good looking. I think the multiplatform games will look much better in a year or two once the devs have totally dropped PS360 support.
As impressive as Crysis is, you're effectively comparing a game that targeted 2007/2008 PC hardware (I don't think it even ran
well on what was considered to be high-end when the game launched) while the X360 launched two years before that and was in development for multiple years.
I see what you're getting at, but the difference wouldn't be
that high if you take a game that targeted 2005/2006 high-end PC specs with what ended up in the X360 (a more level playing field). 2-3 years is an eternity in technological progress.
If we get back to Shifty's point about comparing $400 hardware in a $400 console (PS4) and what we got last generation which was effectively a $700 hardware in $600 console - I think it's a bit an unfair, because the PS3's high cost wasn't entirely down to it pushing bounderies in processing power. A lot of the high costs were also down to including a harddrive (relative expensive at the time), including Bluray drive and going for HDMI.
Yes, a lot of it was also down to Sony (and Microsoft) pushing the bounderies of what was considered feasable in a CE device. CELL AFAIR was around 230mm^2 in die size - and the GPU was even larger - 250mm^2 something? That was considered state of the art (for a console) in 2006 and if they hadn't waited for Bluray and HDMI, the console could have even be on the market sooner. That's nearly 500mm^2 worth of transistors. Now compare that with what is considered to be "medium-level hardware" in form of the PS4's APU. I think Orbis clocks in at 320mm^2 at 28nm?
I think the big picture here is, what would we as gamers gain if Sony (and Microsoft) had again pushed the bounderies of what is feasable in a CE mass-market device and gone for a similar transistor budget relative to what they did in the previous generation. Sure, for us forum nitpickers who analyze screenshots and count pixels, of course there would be a noticable difference. In the eye of the average consumer however, I'm not entirely sure the difference would be that large - just as insignificant the difference between XOne and PS4 is, even in the titles that are currently favouring PS4.
All this talk about more processing power and better graphics is all very relative. My friend who plays on a regular basis and has around 10+ games on his PS3 (so for all intends and purpose - a significant gamer among the mass market consumer) thinks BF4 is a better looking game than KillZone:SF. It's as if the added complexity, higher resolution and draw distance in KZSF doesn't exist - but at first glance, it's the realistic art-direction in BF4 that gets the thumbs up from him.
I really don't think the added silicon budget in a proposed $600 PS4 would yield a significant difference to
that average consumer. Better yes. Significant, I doubt so.