A hugely misinformed thread.

The performance of a computer is dependent on its architecture and the microarchitecture of its components. Its incredibly complex yes, but there are clear big factors: the CPU, GPU, RAM, data transfer rate, any bottlenecks, ROM.

Two computers with similar architectures (similar not exact microarchitectures) can be accurately compared and we know ROM is SSD for both. We know both will be using relatively the same CPU. The only contentious area is the GPU and the RAM (type and amount).

In the context of gaming GPUs are hugely important. They govern most of the matrix and vector math in games (vertex calculations, rotations and translations, ray tracing for lighting and sound, shading and texture mapping, vision and projection etc). 

Type of RAM is important for the speed of data transfer, which alongside and the amount will govern how much calculations can be executed per frame: it can increase graphics for fixed amount of frames or mean higher frames for fixed amount of graphics. 

Yet if TF was everything to MS than why would they release a rumour 4TF console that has less than the XB1X?..

It seems many took too serious the marketing appoach.

You are right that I don't know how knowledgeable Permalite et al are. I only see the meandering around the issue in their posts.

As to call to authority ("He knows much more than you do"), it might surprise you that I actually designed and built computers and parts (Gepard, for example, that brand is certainly completely unknown nowadays) before Permalite was even born. By designing and building I actually mean start with a white sheet of paper (actually mm-grid-paper), draw the layout, transfer the layout to uv-transparent foils, transfer the foil layouts onto copper boards, develop the boards (might have cost a few brain cells, that part wasn't particularly healthy), edge the boards, populate the good boards with chips, (restart if it doesn't work), the full program. Those were the good old times of hand-made computers...

Don't make a strawman to cover yourself.

You were the one that said "MS boasted power given that seemed important and it worked".

I didn't say it was useless/pointless or that it isn't good to have a strong HW. But for a company the measure of something working is it bringing revenue, and that didn't happen so you can't claim it worked.

You just know you made a bad point and can't admit.

They are not using identical core designs. Far from it.

The Xbox One has the ESRAM which takes up a rather large chunk of the transistor budget.
The Playstation 4 has extra ACE units.
The Xbox One also features the texture mapping standards from the Xbox 360 baked into hardware.
The Playstation 4 includes extra functional CU units.

Identical core designs? Common.

False.
A GPU might not be bottlenecked at say... 1080P because the fillrate it has is enough to keep up at that resolution, but increase that resolution to say... 1440P, suddenly the fillrate comes up shorter, yet the GPU might still have enough compute and geometry capabilities to handle the task... So reducing things such as texture resolution may have a linear increase in performance.

There are other instances where increasing resolution and visual settings will introduce additional cache thrashing, there is a reason why AMD and nVidia are constantly re-using, re-clocking, re-balancing GPU designs in order to remove bottlenecks.

For example... AMD took the Vega 64, cut back the GPU's pixel pipelines and texture mapping units... However AMD retained the number of Render Output Pipelines and increased clockrates with the Vega 7 GPU.
Which means that AMD increased ROP performance in total by about 4.3%, reduced compute and texturing by about 6.5% and increased bandwidth by 112% as AMD's modelling showed that Vega 7's bottleneck laid in the ROP/Memory section of the GPU rather than the compute or texturing.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13923/the-amd-radeon-vii-review

My "babbling" about the issue is usually in response to other people "babbling" about the issue.

Either way... You are not my real mom, you can't tell me what to do.

ROM is Read-Only Memory. That is not an SSD... SSD's are based on NAND, not ROM and thus are able to perform writes.

Nintendo will typically use ROM for it's game carts for that very reason rather than NAND... Mostly because ROM isn't prone to bit flipping like NAND and thus is more reliable for data retention.

Irrelevant.
You don't know what my qualifications or experience is, they may trump everything you have listed by several orders of magnitude, age has nothing to do with that.

I was using Atari 2600's when they were cool. I designed 8-bit Microcontrollers and controlled robots that I designed and built.
I was programming in Beginners All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code on the commodore 64 creating rudimentary "games" leveraging ASCII.. And this was all  before I was even in high-school.

I was there when the hardware accelerated 3D revolution took off, which got kickstarted by 3dfx. - I was there when TnL was the big buzzword in gaming graphics with the Geforce 256, I was using PC's before Windows 95 or NT even existed with the now-familiar interfaces.

Don't assume I am ignorant when it comes to technology.

Nor does it mean yours or mine past experience has any bearing on technology aspects of today, things are different now if you haven't been paying attention... Especially as we enter the Ray Tracing era.

At the end of the day, FLOPS is irrelevant, there are so many examples I have provided where even identical GPU's with the same flops will have half the performance... And if you have as much "experience" as you say you do... You should know this as a basic fundamental factoid.

You're projecting, you made the straw man.

The X1X did work at ending much of the boasting about power from Sony fans. I didn't imply it closed the sales gap, that was irrelevant.