Best graphics in game under 1GB

There is different problem than lack of competition. It is called lack of market. Very few people claim that their processors are not powerful enough. There are millions of PC users that don't need processing power of weakest member of Core i3 family.

That's why Intel are currently developing cheaper, less powerful processors. All their R&D are currently working on developing better Ultra Low Voltage processors. (All with letter U in their name) Also Atom series is in heavy development. You see, the biggest threat from Intel's point of view is Qualcomm and their Snapdragons, and Apple's A-series processors. They are worried that people will stop using PC, and start using Tablets and Smartphones. AMD has also stopped developing high power processors, and they are working right now at new line of processors, which will require only passive cooling. Why? Because you can sell millions of them, not tens of thousands. Most PC's are business machines. And you want them cheap to buy, cheap to run, reliable and quiet. Word and Excel will work as well on four year old Celerons as on modern i7's. Maybe if you are working on a big spreadsheets with a lot of scripts - but most people don't.

Processor's for gamers are usually a low sellers. I mean how much core i7-5820K worth 400$ can they sell? Average gamers can buy a console for that price, and here you need to buy also a Video Card, HDD, Motherboard, RAM, Windows and all the little things you need to get to make the computer working. I mean, you need to spend something like 1500-2000 $ for computer with that kind of power. Many people just can't afford this kind of money for an entertainment. That's why development of these processors has stopped entirely. They just from time to time incorporate one of technologies from ULV into desktop series. No one is working on new high powered core i7, because only a few thousand people could use them.

Also there is another problem. If you wan;t to make a game which can use this kind of processor you need to build a lot of UHD assets. Usually models and textures are optimised for 1080p or even 720p resolution. If you want to prepare them for 1440p or 4K resolutions, it will take a lot of time to create them with such precision. More time equals higher costs. And even now a lot of games are unprofitable. Creating them specifically for high power PC's Will end up in reducing number of game sales. I mean how many people will buy the game created specifically for desktop core i7? 200k copies? 300k copies? Let's say that consoles are removed from the market. You can get between 500k and 1 million sales. 30$ a game, that's at most 30 million dollars on an average title. And since now top budget for a game was around 250 million dollars... Well, you can see where this is going. Developing a AAA game for 20 million dollars is very difficult now. Upgrading the graphics, will increase the costs, but will it increase sales? Usually it doesn't.

And simply increasing texture resolution, and number of polygons isn't going to work, because you will enter the uncanny valley. You need to improve every aspect of the game's graphics. And it will take time and money.

Not to mention the problem with game size. How often would you like to download 100 GB+ game? I personally have 1 TB HDD. After Windows it will allow to install 9 games of that size on my disk. I know that there are 8 TB disks available for sale, but again, how many people has one? 5% of PC Gamers?

Crisis has sold around 3 million copies on the PC. And it is the best selling PC game with graphics surpassing what consoles of it's time had to offer. In 2014 alone there were five PS4 games, three PS3 games, two X360, and a single XOne game that has sold more than 3 million copies. So there are multiple examples of games which has sold better than Crisis. Best selling game of 2007 was Wii Sports (14 mil copies), and top X360 seller (Halo 3) sold over twice as good as Crisis in it's lifetime. And cost of creating graphics in Crisis quality was much higher than working with Halo's quality. And on the side note - I seriously disliked Crisis. It's just my personal opinion - I don't say it is a bad game, I just say that I don't like it. Like most of the FPS-es.

In the essence, creating games for top tier PC's, and powerful PC's are just too expensive. And blaming consoles that they are underpowered - it is just misunderstanding the problem.

Besides, look at the sales figures. CoD sells millions of copies, and every time it looks worse that Battlefield which is released the same year. Minecraft and Sims are two PC top sellers. And how do they look? Also what is the best game you have ever played? Was it the best looking game? Also one more thing. Better visuals doesn't equal better looking game. Look at the Bastion or Braid. Both 2D games, which got technically primitive graphics. But do they look bad? Is there a single moment in any of the Battlefields where you stopped just to look at the surrounding area? I can't remember any, but I remember that I was amazed by Citadel, and Feros in Mass Effect. And technically it was average. And before you start to blame the engine - look at Total Chaos. The best looking game made in Doom 2 engine.

If you want to see better graphics in game, there is only one thing which might help to do this. New set of tools to develop graphics faster, and cheaper. They are on the way. First of all - 3D scanning. It's got some limitations, but you can get impressive results. Look at Vanishing of Ethan Carter. It used scans instead of building models in the old fashioned way. AAA titles are using more and more PCG (Procedurally Generated Content) For Example Battlefield 4 is creating PGC textures for bump maps. (and as usual with new toy - they overdid it, look at the car you are driving in the final moments of the first mission) In few years they will be as common as AK-47 in FPS. But now it is economically impractical to create a game for top tier PC.

"2500K power consumption under load: 125.6 W
4960K power consumption under load: 109 W"

No. Those figures were not for the CPUs in isolation. Those figures were for complete systems. /o\ My 2500K most certainly does not draw 125W by itself under load! But thank you for the amusing mental image.

I'm not being condescending. You've made factual errors and demonstrated a basic lack of understanding in almost every one of your posts. Even your method of using TDP for power consumption (ha!) gives double performance-per-watt from Sandy to Broady, but I don't want to be right for the wrong reasons.