That seems to be the general thought but at hotchips it appeared that MS has a few things going on that no one knows about or how its being used because they did not state it.  How the APU and CPU work and the efficiency of the parts including the tools, libraries and APIs will define if developers can tap into that design and product results that surprise them.  A few developers have made this statement so its up to the games to show which system is built more efficient.

30-50% is NOT a huge performance difference.

But you cant deny that that difference is real and that it does exist. Its as clear as fucking day.

MS can talk themselves blue in the face about how well there software does but at the end of the day that gap is there.

Whether or not this relates into anything tangible to the consumer is completely up to the devs.

If I was a betting man, I would believe that the 29th isn't going to hold any secrete dGPU.  My reasoning is the statements made by MS.  You can be sure they are very carefully stated but it doesn't sound like on the 29th the X1 is going to pack a chip that goings to make the X1 a giant killer.  instead, I believe MS feels their current hardware, software, API, Libraries is enough to close the gap on performance between the X1 and PS4 to the point neither will outperform the other.

Its clear on paper but if you are not coding against both platforms you really do not know exactly how much real world difference it is.  I am not sure if how MS designed the X1 that the memory advange will give Sony an edge.  What it does mean is that coding for the X1 compared to the PS4 will be different. GDDR has the latency so it will be interesting how that will be negated.  MS has a more complex memory setup but not all game code need that kind of bandwidth so more efficient code to use the ESRAM will be required but who knows it might all equal out in the end.  I am not sure if having more CUs will be a huge advantage over MS custom co-processors.  We might find that for gaming, MS offloading a lot of stuff to their co-processors frees up the GPU enough to maintain close performance with the PS4.  

On paper, the PS3 smoked the 360 but in reality it was a lot closer and both systems had strengths and weakness to pretty much balance out the games.  Right now the difference we see for the systems is in the GPU numbers which may or may not play as big a role as people are stating in the forums and the memory setups.

There is a lot going on in the X1 setup so making a definitive statement that one system is stronger than another probalby will no be clear until developers under NDAs start to give their opinion on programming on both systems.

Theres quite a few people in the gaming community who do understand the gist of all the technical speak though and believe it or not its not really your qualification/degree that determines this but rather your interest and ability to learn. There are some people who know much more about PC hardware and architecture than me, yet i have studied the stuff. It also happens that a lot of people interested in gaming also happen to be interested in PC tec etc. So id say your 90% figure is a bit off.

Anyways with regards to the PS4 vs Xbone power thing I think a lot of people have it wrong. People seem to think that either the PS4 is sooo much more powerfull that it's games are going to look so much better or that its not that much more powerful and the games will look very similar, something like this gen with PS3 vs. 360.

From what i can tell though both arguments are wrong. Both arguments try and make it seem as if one is much better than it what it should seem.

The PS4 does indeed have a significant theoretical performance over the Xbox One...a difference that is NOT similar to PS3 vs. 360. These systems are much more similar in architecture, much more easily comparable, and to top it off they are built by the same companies with the exact same tec. Same CPU, same GPU cores. etc.

At the end of the day though the PS4 does indeed have a more beefier GPU and arguably a better memory solution (some will argue but meh weak arguments to be honest), this performance difference cant really be quanitified but comparing GPU's theres a ~30%? performance difference. If developers decide to use this then you will indeed see better games, better performing games or better effects or whatever. Will it be a mindblowing difference so apparent that your eyes will bleed? No. 30% is a  lot but nothing compared to gen over gen or something like that. Will the differences be insignificant like PS3/360? No. Those systems were literally equal in real world performance.

What the difference will be is somewhere more in between. Sometimes it will be more apparent, sometimes it wont be apparent etc.

I guess i agree with you :? Not sure why im qouting you..oh well

The fact that Microsoft is constantly out there right now doing damage control and pr spin like this is exactly why they will bever beat sony in a console war...well that and sony has a larger global audience, and knows how to build a console that can maintain momentum in a console cycle longer than 3-4 yrs.

Don't Alberto's statements more or less confirm there isn't a 2nd GPU? I mean, having a whole second GPU in the Xb one would not just bring hardware parity to PS4 but would take Xb one well beyond PS4, unless it was the shittiest, cheapest GPU available on the market today which only boosts Xb one performance about 30% or so.

So I take those statements to mean that the specs out in the public are pretty much the specs for Xb one, and that it's all about maximising the use of the hardware through brilliant programming and software design.

I totally agree with this point.  Seems even less likly of that dGPU and more about how well the X1 is designed to produce results.

Theres quite a big difference though in the GPU's...

Offloading a few tasks to co-processors wont offset that. The PS4 also has multiple co-processors (not as much it seems given the info we have) which it offloads audio processing and video compression etc.

I mean theres a reason why these systems have such weak CPU's. They are almost fully reliant on the GPU's. And when we do compare GPU's the Xbox One's falls short.

And also just remember when speaking about the memory....if GDDR5 memory was as cheap as DDR3, then MS would have gone with GDDR5 memory. No arguments about that. Thats why Sony made a big deal about it at their conference. That's why high end GPU's use GDDR5 ram...ESRAM is a workaround. A good workaround but its a workaround. I feel like people forget this. The latency difference is there, but given the context we talking about, this isnt really an issue.

And really the PS3/360 comparison is completely different. They have very differenct architectures, very different technologies etc. Now we actually have comparable systems and everybodies acting like we cant compare them like for like? Whatsup with that :?

And the whole NDA stuff...im not sure exactly what you refering to? The supposed dgpu? If you are talking about that then thats a completely difference case though. The way Alberts is talking though..it doesnt seem like Xbone will have the raw performance advantage.

Yes 90% of people just copy and past things. That goes for both sides of the coin though. You admit you don't know this stuff so why in your first post do you just repeat what all the xbox guys post and say it's a fact? You guarantee it?

As for telling me something, don't worry. I do know this stuff and I have a pretty good idea of how early next gen graphics will be.