So basicaly Xbox 1 is less powerfull so it cant make full use of the superior DDR5 RAM. Thats the TLDR of the OP, he tried to make it look like a good thing tough.

Regardless of performance diference the vast majority of games will look the same on Xbone and PS4 because theyre multiplats and stuf, I think the diference will only be noticed on exclusives, specialy the ones coming later on the consoles life cycle when devs have better understanding on how the systens work, its not a big deal realy.

I am SO TIRED of ignorant people posting things they think are correct and then defending them even though they have no idea what they are talking about!

Out of all your posts so far in this thread, this one is the only one worth my time. 

Welcome to Vgchartz.

That is the same as saying a standard car doesn't need ceramic brakes as it is too slow................that is not a good thing when you are comparing how fast they go ^^ Yes, you are right, but it puts the Xbox in a bad position.

There are graphics cards out there that are weaker than what's in the Xbox One that utilize GDDR5 from both AMD and Nvidia. If GDDR5 was a bottleneck these cards wouldn't include it.

Ok now I get it.  The whole point of this post was to teach me that there are tons of people like you who talk out of their @$$.   Thanks for the lesson!

What did you are talking?

You can't sum bandwidth dude... and 176GB/s is for GPU and CPU in PS4... they use the same memory controller... they share the bandwidth and memory... CPU didn't use 10GB/s bandwidth... 90% of the PS4 bandwidth is for GPU.

The bus for gamepads, EyeToy, peripherals is other in PS4 too... in every other consoles or PC... we are talking about Memory bus and not peripherical/gamepad/kinect bus lol... theses guys didn't access the memory... they do requests to CPU via NorthBridge... they don't have direct access to memory or the memory controller.

And you are not reading the VGLeaks diagram in the wrong way... the PS4 diagram is similar to that too.

And stop with bullshit 102GB/s... only 32MB of eSRAM can be access in 102GB/s... the main bus is 68GB/s shared for all.

Seriously dude, just give up. You're obviously wrong and this thread is going in circles.

Your OP is simply a case of confirmation bias.

yep. From a boasting perspective anyway. That shit started the second Sony revealed it.

That link "example" has me puzzled ever since I saw it. Unfortunately it leads to people falsely "adding up numbers" like you correctly mention.

1. They couldn't figure out where the four dma controllers go so they put them idle at the bottom, without showing what they connect to. The display/Scan box should be drawn connected to the esram, of course, not placed in limbo (and the video encoder likely sits there, too).

2. Read command of the gpu is shown as 4G/s. But where are they reading from? Either from esram or from dram, so these bandwidth numbers are already allocated for at all times...

3. The gpu memory controller shows 0.5G/s write + 5.5G/s "read from dram". But where are they reading from? Either from esram or dram, so these bandwidth numbers are already allocated for at all times...

4. The gpu memory controller shows 102G/s r/w to esram and 42G/s r/w to dram. If that were true, there woud be two physically separated (256bit) data and (34bit) address busses, in addition to the physically separated 37G(s data/address bus to the gpu and another 25G/s data/address bus to the Northbridge. That is one hell of a bus layout. Congrats to the hardware engineers (or more likely, this diagram is nonsense).

All in all, this diagram is more puzzling than revealing..