Why are posting GT5 on PS3 as a reference since we know GTS will not be on PS3 but PS4.
Because PD's performance on the PS3 was already a part of the discussion by a number of other members, including you!
Perhaps you would like to let me know which part of the AUP permits you to engage in an area of discussion, but also then allows you to seemingly try and bar others from that same area?
PD's performance on titles over the last decade is relevant for a number of reasons, first it provides us with an idea of the recent mindset and development choices they have made, its also gives us an idea of what they will target and what they have been willing to sacrifice to hit those targets (resolution over frame rate for example) and finally they have provided us with nothing else to work with.
Anyways if you want to see the performance on PS3 in youtube there is a video of GT6 where it shows 60fps in london track, 50-53fps in toscana and the worst area seems to be leman with rain especially when player crashes the bumper of the car in front which goes to 48-52fps.
But here is the thing people think it goes from 60-48 and back and forth. But that is not the case at all. Different sector of track depending on things on screen it varries from say 50-53 and some areas 53-56. There is 1.04 patch of Pcars on youtube showing the fps improvement. Monte carlo with rain, 20 cars is worst around 50. F1 2015 is much better and Dirt rally never goes below 57fps. Gamersyde video has with rain as well on youtube and it is always 60fps. This makes me believe F1 2016 will do better and so will Pcars2. Reviewer and most people meant complained about controls not the fps and since it was a port from the PC it is buggy. They gone on to release patch 10.0 so I am sure tried to improve. Codies have also been know for buggy games on PC but with F1 2015 and especially Dirt rally I think they have done great job.
It would be nice if that were actually true, but its unfortunately easily shown to not be the case.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-gran-turismo-6
As you can see even from the snapshot on that youtube clip its hitting 38fps in 1080p (which again is not a true 1080p), that's a full 10fps lower than you claimed it hit as a minimum and almost half the maximum framerate and at one point hits as low as 32fps. The only time in that video 60fps gets hit regularly is using bumper cam (sorry anyone who likes a cockpit view) in the sunshine. To quote the DF analysis.
"
Unfortunately, the 60fps target is regularly missed, resulting in screen-tear and image judder far more often than we'd like.
Tearing remains an issue with GT6 but manifests itself somewhat differently than in GT5, necessitating a rewrite of the tear detection algorithms in our performance tools. The overall effect is less distracting than in GT5 but still far from optimal - the visual impact of the tearing is not as noticeable to the human eye, but there's a definite "wobble" in the presentation when frame-rate dips below 60fps."
Polyphony are better than these guys. If you see their track record these always get more out of the console than others.
I disagree and quite frankly based on the last ten years development have little faith in the direction they head for, as arguably GT6 could have hit a solid 60fps had PD opted for 720p over 1080p and done so without framerate drops and tearing. Given that many opted to run GT5 and GT6 at 720p to make it bearable does make me wonder why they never did this.
Sony hasn't said anything on this matter.
Not officially, but that developers are providing consistent matching information with regard to spec, dev kit time-lines and development goals; that Sony are not then dismissing is as close to confirmation as we are going to get.
And if the Neo is real, we could easily see it on shelves by the holiday season.
Its either real, or multiple developers are all talking (the exact same) nonsense, with no denial from Sony.
As for people holding off for the Neo, lets not forget that the standard PS4 and the Neo will co-exist. So maybe its like $299 for base & $399 for Neo and if there's better gross margin in the Neo, Sony wouldn't mind if people wait.
Two things here. Console manufacturers has historically failed when they have attempted to split hardware into two 'versions' in the past, Sony need to be very careful with this. Secondly a better gross margin in the Neo is a big 'if' at present, given that the spec seen (from multiple sources) indicates that the AMD GPU could be based on the upcoming Polaris, which would not be the 'cheap', profit focused option.