Its far more efficient watt for watt and does not need raw power to produce the same results as the 360/PS3 CPU's. It just needs efficient programming.
It's simply more efficient than those, quite honestly also because they're bad CPU's; and yet they're PPC, not x86. that architecture got dropped once, (IBM GuTS) because it was turd, it got revived out of Sony wanting something different, Microsoft wanting whatever they ordered and IBM wanting to test some more at their clients expenses.
You don't need to be efficient to tackle this CPU or no-one would be saying it punches above it's weight; you have to be efficient to tackle PS3 and X360 architectures, and that's why it's suffering here, because it's of a different nature.
You just need to code for it: it's a 32-bit CPU with 64-bit FPU. And it behaves like one; short pipeline so it's fast at giving resources, but it doesn't dispatch many instructions per cycle opposite of modern solutions. And the 64-bit FPU ensues the floating point performance certainly isn't over the moon; but CPU's not so long ago were like that so it's not like it's a foreign concept.
The fact that it is only 1.24 GHz though, is damaging for that part of the design.
I'd imagine Latte is similar in design as well. More performance watt for watt as opposed to going the cheaper, more energy consuming, more heat producing brute force path.
A more branched design is not necessarily brute force; brute force is going 4 GHz with liquid cooling, adding more complexity just so the cpu can do more at the same time was the solution needed in order to keep gaining performance. I mean we've been sitting on the 2.4 GHz figure being a normal clock for 10 years now; yet pull a 2.4 GHz from 10 years ago (a multiprocessor solution if you will just so it compares better) versus a dual core from 5 years ago to one today, all within that ballpark and performances will grandly differ.
That's because architectures became more and more complex internally while striking for a balance.
It's balancing act.
So instead of just saying you were wrong you go on a tangent letting us know you don't like the game. You followed enough to claim it was downgraded when it was not.
Erm... sure dude. I was pretty honest regarding it, that's it. I dunno if it was downgraded, people told me it was, what else do you want from me?
I don't pay much attention to it, no. But 1080p30 on a launch FPS for PS4 is pretty lousy in my book, not because 1080p60 is easy, but if it's not doable then they should be aiming for 720p60.
I won't change my opinion regarding that, it's a first person shooter after all. Perhaps I dislike previous installments for the fact they felt lagged and sluggish; should be right up there on the compromises not to do on a new platform, at least on the first game.
My point being, if their target for Single Player campaign was 30 frames all along, then they're stupid.