PS4 = approx 1.8 Teraflops

XBOX One = approx 1.2 Teraflops

The PS4 is approx 30 - 40 percent more powerful than the XBOX One

Your first point is incorrect in a massive way. The PS4 has a single memory pool, 8GBytes of fast ram. The XBox One has TWO memory pools, 8GBytes of "PC speed" ram and a small 32MByte pool of fast ram. I think you instantly see the problem: A developer on the XBox has to keep track of two entirely different memory pools if he wants to use the "full speed features". It is a no-brainer that managing two pools makes programming more difficult than managing a single pool. (I fully expect that initial XBox softwares use the eDram for a simple frame buffer device and call it a day...)

Your second point is so dumb it really reeks of desperation from whoever invented that shit. Both PS4 and XBox processors come from the identical Jaguar design, both processors were concurrently designed. The mere idea that AMD designed two (basically identical) processors, and one of the processors is miraculously n times more powerful is so ridiculous that it really doesn't warrant any serious consideration.

First we had this idiot blogger that posts "12G gddr5 and 4.5TFlop gpu for XBox", the next day it's "6 times more executions for XBox". Really, people,....

Well I guess I am wrong then. I had thought thatMark Cerny talked about a second chip that handeled OS functions, but I guess it is just seperate dedicated chips for each of those functions (Audio/Video/Networking).

So in that case, has there been any word of these co-processors for the XB0? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0F3LKaGN2A

User was warned for this post - Kantor

OK, so besides the miss understanding of the 3 dedicated processors for A/V/N on PS4 what else on this list does not match what has been announced by each company?

This rumoured PS4 component is currently thought to be a low-power ARM cpu. Now guesss what the "cpu" stands for in ""low power ARM cpu" ?

you were not wrong it is a 2nd CPU it is an Arm Cortex A5! THAT IS A FULL CPU core and both would have it if the xbox one's is also AMD's

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/14/3084680/amd-x86-apu-arm-cortex-a5-integration

There was an ARM chip in the Wii as well.   That's a co-processor, not a CPU.  It's there to handle security.

Wait a min, the Arm Cortex A5 is not just some sort of Co-processor, it is a full CPU, and Mark already went over this it handles background downloading.

the Cortex A5 is not just a simple processor or something like that, here look for yourself.

The Cortex-A5 in AMD’s future APUs will be a fully functional ARM processor and in theory it is possible to run full ARM applications on the processor (OS differences not withstanding), though at this point in time AMD hasn’t released the full details on how accessing the ARM processor will work. Even if AMD just intends to use ARM for TrustZone today, this opens the door to comprehensive native ARM code execution in the future if AMD wanted to go that way; but at the same time this could end up being as far as AMD ever goes.

and as its shown there it can be used for more than just security, for instance the PSVita is Powered by a Quad Cortex A9

Cortex-A Series

http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a5.php

Its just not a simple coprocessor remember the PSVita is powered by a quad cortex A9, well think the PS4 containing a cortex A5 was not chosen for a reason?

At least we agree on something, as this is indeed getting annoying, I am not sure we agree on when it got annoying though.

Anyhow, you're assertion was that there mere fact that Microsoft didn't boast of their specs was proof that their console is weaker. 'The mere fact' means that that fact and that fact alone is enough to prove your conclusion. Wich is a logical error as already pointed out. Even if you had brought in all these other references to your argument that you are talking about, your assertion would still be logically invalid and nothing would have changed.

Again, by adding to your analogy you have done nothing to correct the logical error in the reasoning. I have come to the conclusion that you don't understand formal logic, have no intention of applying the rules of logic to your arguments and fail to see the benefit of clear logical reasoning even in informal arguments. It's with a certain degree of sadness I conclude that my efforts over the past two days have yielded zero results and that my dream of this place fostering at least a somewhat rational debate is none the closer.

Thank you for your time.