So I should take what you say as true given your years of experience! In that case I will get the less powerful PS4! The Xbox One won't be available on my country

The fuck would someone go to school for CS if they wanted to concern themselves with hardware? That's straight up computer engineering.

Lol fucking fanboy.

I don't care if what he's saying is true, he's being a dork about it. Plus you can not write one of these pieces pushing that the xbox one is better, and simply ignore where it actually is better! He should have talked about the advantages of shape but nope.

Wii U is stronger than both.

No it isn't. The memory bandwidth is higher so what? The bandwidth is useless when it comes down to actual performance and bottlenecks. The processors are so close that any difference would be negligble. As with the graphics. OH BOY THE PS4 GETS 3 MORE FPS WOOO TIME TO CELEBRATE I GET 33 FPS VS 30 FPS. I'm not even going to get an Xbox One next generation and I can see how stupid the fan boys arguments are (not calling you a fan boy) There is no absolute reason to believe the PS4 could display higher quality visuals than the Xbox One. There is not a big enough gap in their hardware to even warrant such a difference. 

The problem with this blog post is it doesn't acknowledge the differences we know of in the GPU. While it talks about the frequency the GPU is running at, it doesn't mention the potential benefits to the PS4 that the number of shaders could have.

My big problem with this article is that unlike with the last generation, no one technically knowledgeable has looked at the specs and in technical terms, spelled out how each one will perform based on what we do know. What we have is people looking at specs and saying "This number is bigger, therefore this is better!".

The Cell processor could smoke the Xenon processor in the PS3 and Xbox 360, yet the technical superiority of one over the other was made moot by differences elsewhere in the console. I don't know if it's because there is no one capable of providing the rundown like we saw last generation, or if it's simply a matter of not having enough data. I would much prefer though having a clear understanding of what the capabilities of each system as a whole operating unit are rather than what one has which bigger specs.

This blog post does nothing to placate that, nor does it advance the discussion any further than it has already been.

The Cell had power, but the rest of the console was one big joke. 512MB of memory and essentially only 256MB of it was allowed for the graphics. The 360 had more available graphics memory and in some multi platform games that showed to help it. The graphics chip and memory bottlenecked the cell. It's all about bottlenecks. I could put a couple titans into my system, but in the end my Athlon II x4 2.8ghz would bottleneck the graphics chips. I'd need to upgrade into a faster processor to see frame increases in some games. See why consoles have 8GB of memory now? They don't want to run into the terrible bottleneck. Even in 06 systems dedicated for gaming were getting 2-4GB of memory. So putting 512 in was flawed from the beginning. Especially when they planned a 7-8 year console cycle.  

You basically just said to everyone in that post you have no idea how hardware works. The 360 wasn't limiting what the PS3 could do. The PS3 was limiting what the PS3 could do. The 360 had a faster graphics chip than the PS3 (Proven) and allowed more ram to the system/video as needed. The RAM in the PS3 was a major limit. It restricted the resolution the console could run at for one. Less graphics memory means you cannot expand your resolution as much. Secondly the graphics chip in the PS3 also helped limit itself. Suddenly the PS3 was more powerful due to its more powerful processor, but now that the processing power is equal the graphics chip is the decider? What a joke. There isn't enough difference between either to show any significant difference in performance. Anything would be negligible. Running 1080p at 40 FPS or 30 FPS there is absolutely no difference. Even if the PS4 could squeeze a slight advantage over the Xbox One it wouldn't be enough to warrant any special differences graphically. 

50% difference on what paper? That never translates into actual processor capability. Especially for games. A workstation card can pull more flops than a gaming card, but never touch the performance of said gaming card in games. 

IMO these comparisons are meaningless. In the end it depends on games. Saw last two gen people fighting over console specifications which is repeating here again. I will get ps4 next year and xbox one after they introduce slim model (3-4 years later). Till then my ps3 and pc will be enough.