It's actually 42.9%.
That is an 11.11% extra CU advantage to the Xbox One X and the rest is made up from it's clockspeed advantage (28.64%)
However... The Xbox One X also has a massive 50% ROP advantage by default, which also operates 28.64% faster, which is where the real advantage lays, which plays into it's bandwidth advantage too which is significant.

Flops/CU's isn't everything. A balanced, efficient design can be far more important.

Disadvantage actually. Pro has 64 ROPs, XBX only 32 ROPs. Even with the clock disadvantage and lower RAM bandwidth the Pro has a slightly better fillrate than XBX. Actual real Bench-marked fillrate on Pro is a bit higher than the XBX maximum theoretical fillrate.

It can be seen in a few games, in some particular scenes that are heavily fillrate bound, the XBX struggles a bit compared to Pro (particularly if the res is higher on XBX). For instance in scenes where there is a fire in Shadow of mordor on XBX (seen in one of the first DF framerate videos about several XBX games). Also in some rare scenes on COD WWII the Pro game can even output at a slightly higher res than on XBX, and in others many scenes the resolution is very similar in both versions.

Also we know others games run more or less worse on XBX, that could well be explained by a ROP bottleneck. For instance Metal gear survive, Battlefront 2 or Redout.

And even with them being aggressive, they still came in 3rd. MS has never won a gen, nor will it. It took Sony fucking up majorly for them to take that close 3rd. That's just how big the PS brand is. How likely is it that Sony fucks up that big again? They would have to come out a year later, which in itself doesn't matter, with only slightly more powerful HW and a launch price $200 more than MS, but 3rd party games looking worse for a year or so due to complicated HW, to screw up that big, again.

Also, it's pretty obvious that MS doesn't care about Xbox like they did in the 360 days, so they aren't going to be paying millions to gobble up exclusives and marketing rights. Maybe the first year, but once it becomes clear that the PS5 is selling very well, the price to keep things off of PS goes up incredibly. Besides, it didn't help them stay ahead last gen, and it isn't going to help much next gen with Sony firing, once again, on all cylinders. I mean worst case scenario, the PS5 is slightly less powerful, but costs the same as the XB2, and a couple big games come out first on the XB2. That's not going to hurt its sales at all.

As for COD, it became very clear that the audience was split pretty close to 50/50 later in the gen, with NA being skewed 360 and EU/Japan skewing PS3, so exclusive marketing rights and early DLC isn't that big a factor. Of course, we'll also see if MS wants to continue paying for them as the price to do so rises. 

"We are on a different market now"? If you're going to invent new "rules of sales" by saying that release timing matters now when it never did in any prior generation, I'm going to need some good evidence justifying it. The burden of proof is on you to show that release timing is now an important factor.

As a counterargument, if the Xbox 4 releases too early, it may not be sufficiently powerful compared to the X1X. Even if it is, it may not be as powerful as the PS5, especially if MS goes for a $400 price point and Sony goes for a $500 price point. Furthermore, CoD may be big, but it's not as big as it used to be, plus whatever CoD game is first released for the Xbox 4, it will be a cross-gen game, and thus unlikely to be pushing the Xbox 4's hardware much. While it may have slightly better textures and/or run at a higher resolution, the difference may not be sufficient to make it such a superior port that CoD players on PS4 will start to abandon PlayStation to make the jump to the Xbox 4.

Finally, the PS3 didn't suffer because it released a year after the 360. It suffered because "FIVE HUNDRED NINETY NINE U.S. DOLLARS!" The 360 had a massive price advantage right out of the gate. The 20GB 360 "Pro" was $100 cheaper than the comparable PS3 SKU for a full year after the PS3 launched. By time the PS3 had been cut to $400, the 360 Pro had been reduced to $350. And the PS3 wouldn't get reduced to $300 until a full year after the 360 Pro had been reduced to that price. It wasn't until Aug. 2009 that the PS3 finally got to price parity with the 360, and by that point it was too late to take the lead in the U.S. Once the 360 S was released in June 2010, the PS3 didn't stand a chance (though the PS3 still dominated in Europe and Japan).

https://www.sie.com/en/corporate/release/2018/180109.html

"PS4 has now cumulatively sold through more than 73.6 million units globally as of December 31, 2017." (4 years, 1 month and 17 days).

Right now, Sony should double down on PS4/PS4 Pro - in my opinion, it has a clear chance of becoming the best selling console of all time.

Releasing PS5 in 2019 won't benefit them.

Disadvantage actually. Pro has 64 ROPs, XBX only 32 ROPs.

Even with the clock disadvantage and lower RAM bandwidth the Pro has a slightly better fillrate than XBX. Actual real Bench-marked fillrate on Pro is a bit higher than the XBX maximum theoretical fillrate.

It can be seen in a few games, in some particular scenes that are heavily fillrate bound, the XBX struggles a bit compared to Pro (particularly if the res is higher on XBX).

For instance in scenes where there is a fire in Shadow of mordor on XBX (seen in one of the first DF framerate videos about several XBX games). Also in some rare scenes on COD WWII the Pro game can even output at a slightly higher res than on XBX, and in others many scenes the resolution is very similar in both versions.

Also we know others games run more or less worse on XBX, that could well be explained by a ROP bottleneck. For instance Metal gear survive, Battlefront 2 or Redout.

It could also be explained by those Vega features like 16bit floats in Pro‘s GPU, that X1X is lacking. Especially in effect-heavy scenes this can make a world of a difference, if utilised correctly.

I am sorry. But you are wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#Console_GPUs

I tend to fact check all my claims before posting them, you should try it some time.

Where the hell have you gotten your false information? Holy crap.

Give me the sources so I can hilariously tear it apart.

For Pixel Fillrate you multiply the number of ROPS by the Clockspeed.
For Texel Fillrate, you multiply the number of TMU's by the Clockspeed.
For FLOPS you multiple the number of shaders by instructions per clock and then by the clockspeed.

The Xbox One X has more ROP's, TMU's, Shaders (I provided evidence.) and a higher clock rate.

Essentially 1+1 = 2.

You are clasping at straws at this point.

In every single metric, the Xbox One X has an advantage over the Playstation 4 Pro. - This isn't even up for debate, to say otherwise shows you to be hilariously uneducated on the topic.

I can't even believe I am having this conversation. I literally can't.

Rapid Packed Math cannot be used for everything.
It's lower precision, which means it has an impact on the way a game runs/looks.

And considering that the Playstation 4, Xbox One, Xbox One X, 70% of PC GPU's do not have Rapid Packed Math, it's use is always going to be limited, especially for multiplats.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11717/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-and-56-review/4

AMD has been working with futuremark to show the benefits of Rapid Packed Math. - Their take away? 25% increase in performance in 3DMark Serra.
https://overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/amd_rx_vega_-_what_is_rapid_packed_math/1
That is far from a doubling that the theoretical floating point performance would otherwise imply don't you agree?

As for image quality, here is a good comparison between FP16 vs FP32. Aka. Half Precision vs Single Precision. Aka. Rapid Packed Math vs Not... Which just reinforces the fact it cannot be used for everything.

You’re really quite the Klugscheisser here. I never said it can be used for everything. I specifically said it can be used to increase FX performance, didn’t I?

A week ago you were still denying the Pro even uses those features.

I am sorry. But you are wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#Console_GPUs

I tend to fact check all my claims before posting them, you should try it some time.