This quarrel is pointless. GTA4 is an unoptimised nightmare of a game, but at least it scales good with crude CPU power, so it's relatively easy to predict performance of a specific CPU based on its Cinebench or 3dmarkphysics score. With few CPU dependant features turned down a notch I got smooth 35-65fps gameplay in it. Actually this ancient CPU with DDR2 keeps up with unOC'd FXs in games that require 2-4 threads, based on YT videos and ingame benchmarks I can find and compare with mine. And I paid for it in '09 few euros more than FX8350 costs now. Besides, well optimised game is GPU depandant game. Still, I'll gladly buy Skylake when it comes out.
When it comes to 4K, well, I've watched painful deployment of FHD in gaming, it's still far from being wide (something like 35% if steam survey is of any value?), so what do You want me to say? It's reserved for rich folk for now. By the time 4K reach significant percent of rigs those game of today that support it will become outdated graphically and its not major selling point, just bragging point by both devs and those able to afford $600+ LCD and $1000+ SLI/CF. Less demanding games could be run in 4K on middle class GPUs on minimum, still better than consoles, but theres no good quality LCDs under $500, while You can buy FHD IPS for under $150.
You're saying your not rich nor spoiled, but Your comments seems to imply You representing higher income class/nation with ignorance of how much people actually earn outside of developed economies, or like they don't deserve to play video games or watch Netflix or buy smartphones. I got a cousin in N. America, and he considers his parents old country a lesser land, so lecturing You on that topic seems pointless to me.
Again, steam survey: primary display od 1080p owned by up to 35%, quad core under 50%. And R* needs to sell over 10mln PC copies to satisfy investors to invest in next PC port, not few hundred thousand.