From an Architectural perspective of the CPU/GPU, both consoles are more similar than they are different.
So I wouldn't really say it was designed differently at all, they would have petitioned AMD with a list of minor changes and that would have been it.

Where the consoles *really* deviate is in the memory subsystem, Aka. System and eSRAM and it's accompanying co-processors.
But, that could be argued for cost reasons, DDR3 is stupidly cheap, same with the Cut-down Radeon the Xbox uses to save on Transisters, which was spent on the eSRAM instead.

Yes it was necessary. A definite feature that was being missed by many.

We have to rememeber that all game code isn't just the picture you see on the screen.  Syncing up animation, physics, audio etc is better for the entire experience of the hardware and what is being executed.  Basically you can have appliations that all run and share information for a complete experience.

You say mitigation ? I say by how much?

How much a 53 mhz increase on a gpu mitigates anything as drastic than a gpu with +6 CUs / +24 TMUs/ +16 ROPs and +108 GB/s of primary bandwidth

Theres s a way to precisely define every type of meaningfull performance in a gpu. It has been used for decades, it was not invented by Sony or to drive xbox fans mad. This is how it works, it's how you calculate gpu performance, period.

The good thing here is that we comparing oranges to oranges because it's the same GCN architecture, it makes things really easier. When hardware website review GPU they do the Gflops math, fillrate Gpixel/Gtexel count and so on. This is real world numbers which translate really really well in benchmarks (and thats why they have meaning in first place), specially with the same architecture.

The X1 gained something like 80 Gflops with that 53 Mhz increase, less than 1Gpixel/s,.. that's it, im happily taking it, but let's not try to present this as something incredible, cause it's really not.

It's certainly the best effort MS could do at this point by clockin the gpu a bit higher without interferring too much with the tdp and the cooling system they had in place. Maybe they didn't even touch the voltage for that kind of upclock. (Same applies for the cpu)

I think frankly they aimed too low from the start with the X1 hardware, that's my opinion, so they didn't have much margin to do anything else or more. It's  a well optimized system with some potential for a close box though.

Penello had good intentions. However some of the information he gives is not accurate.

Also the systems were designed very similarly, the only major difference is how memory is handled. Not sure how you came to that conclusion?

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/microsoft-exec-defends-xbox-one-from-accusations-its-underpowered/

^^ was just about to post that. my favorite is "what the hell does that even mean?"

Yes some people will only believe is MS say so or MisterXmedia! Give it a rest

The response from Penello is very immature and full of downright lies and MS spin.

Sony have only ever stated that they have created the most powerful console with 1.8tflops of power. They have never mentioned the X180 or a comparison to it. That is all MS own doing

What do you think Cerny and Yoshida won't get asked questions about if the PS4 is more powerful than X180? They have the sense to either not to reply or if they do to at least know what they are talking about.

It isn't Sony making the noises or the comparisons but the 3rd party developers. They are the ones with the dev kits so they are the ones making the comparisons.

Sony will have an advantage in power this gen. They have great first party studios to take advantage of that power too. You can argue it ill your blue in the face but the truth will emerge.

Your right MS will use some secret sauce or phantom clouds(PR spin to fool the weak minded) but i'm sure Sony will have optomizations and code of their own to. You just need to see games like Uncharted,Last of Us and God of war to know that!

I predict that Sony will pull away from X180 games especially in 2nd gen titles!

I completely agree with the highlighted part, but have you read what you are saying?  You say it doesn't work and doesn't matter, but then it magically matters on the PS4.

The 7790 has nearly three times the CU's of the 7950, yet is barely twice as powerful.  So CU's don't make the significant change would would expect on the 7950.  Why does it matter on the GPU cards but not on consoles?  Isn't that what you are saying or do you mean something different.  Not trying to be hostile, just seems contradictory. 

The thing is we do know that one console is able to run things at a higher frame rate and a bit better than the other.  For many reason you have highlighted, I think it is more likely the one with the slighly lower powered GPU than the one many people are assuming. 

Microsoft has done some absolutely amazing things with DirectX 9, which came out way back in 2002 and until recently, has held up remarkable well to everything but the latest super powered Gaming Computers using DirectX 11.  They refined DirectX 9 to 9C so it would be a mature and stable platform when the Xbox 360 came out.  And as you reminded us, Halo 4 won many best graphics awards, and looks great. Halo 5 will also run at 60fps, which should make it even better.

They started over in many ways with DirectX 10, which has then evolved to DirectX 11 and now is refined as DirectX 11.2.  Sure I wish they both had the 2.5 Tflops GPU's that Tim Sweeney wanted, but I still think they will be amazing with what they have. Plus, 2.5 isn't really that much more powerful due to the laws of diminishing returns.

We just have to wait and see which one is more amazing.  I have a feeling a number of people are not going to be happy.