I dont need to look up videos i can read specs fine but Spec sheet doesnt = Real world performance or else the PS2 would of been a beast going by its specs and the emotion engine and the PS3 should of completely destoryed the X360 when it came to graphics but none of that translated into real world.
The original Xbox had an obvious advantage both on paper and in games. There is nothing about the PS2's specs that suggest it was a "beast". Regardless to Sony's fancy names for the pieces in it, the PS2 was pretty under powered. It was the weakest of all three 6th gen systems (and it showed, even despite it generally being the biggest priority system for developers).
Your PS3/360 example is even worse. The PS3 did have a decent hardware advantage over the 360 (it wasn't large, smaller than that of the Xbox and PS2 that's for sure, but it was still there), but it was an absolute nightmare to work with. That's common knowledge.
The PS4 doesn't have that issue. Not only does it have a power advantage (larger than that between the PS3 and 360), it seems to be the easier of the two to work with.
I do agree that specs don't directly equate to a real world advantage, but you're being hypocritical. You can't use that as a defense when the advantage is clear both on paper and in real world games.
It doesn't matter if the advantage is because of specs, because the X1 is tad hardware to work with or because Sony made a deal with a wizard; it's here and claiming the advantage is smaller than what both the specs and games are showing, without any sort of proof, makes you look silly