I don't see where I am disagreeing with reality.

Funny thing is if the PS4 is so much better why aren't there any games to prove that?

Too bad most of us want a console to play games, not to look at the UI and how well it runs.

So do I but nothing, and I mean NOTHING is worse than a sluggish or clunky UI and OS imo.

But you/we must deal with the UI for what, 20-30 min when we buy and configure the console and once it's all set, less than 2 min. if we only want to play? That's nothing compared to the hours we'll spend gaming.

I understand that for you it's important, but for a lot of us it's not a big deal. Personally I don't care, and I have a WiiU with a slow UI...

Yep: the only way to add the speeds of two different pools of memory is putting them in parallel and doubling the width of the memory bus, it's commonly done on most motherboards, and to be able to use that feature you need to use couples of RAM modules of the SAME type, size, speed and latency (probably different speed and latency are allowed by some chipsets, but they simply would be made work by lowering the whole speed and latency to the lowest of them, as they must work synchronously, and this isn't a secondary thing, so much that many RAM manufacturers sell their modules also in couples carefully matched to get the best performace from them when used in dual channel configuration). Trying to use RAM of DIFFERENT size, type, speed and latency in parallel is just an engineering nightmare.
Or maybe they are meaning that CPU and GPU can access those two RAM separately and simultaneously, but even then, whenever they must work together, providing data or instructions each other, the unit working with the slowest memory would bottleneck the whole system.

eSRAM bandwidth and DDR3 bandwidth can't be added for a simple reason, the datas have to go through the northbridge or the gpu memory system in order to acess eSRAM bandwidth. So the datas begin to move at 68 GB/s from the 8 GB DDR3 (assuming your engine is loaded and fully operationnal in main RAM (but that's a given))

Once they arrive in the northbridge, they need to be read at 109 GB/s at least one time by the gpu memory system,
Then the gpu can do.. his work.

THEN the datas are written back at 109 GB/s to the memory system and eventually you can read another small chunk at the same time and at the same speed, but only to the point that the eSRAM is discharged of its previous load (think communicating vessels here), and you hypothetically would not write some bigger  buffers in a larger memory than 32 MB (modern engine want to do that, it will happen all the time), wich means you have to read from the eSRAM once again to place your stuff in the DDR3, back and forth.

That's a very long way to get up to speed... The first read of the datas will always be at 68 GB/s and to access more bandwidth it will always be from a tiny 32 MB chunk and it's always a two steps process, at least.

In PS4, you read your data from the one and only big 8 GB pool at 176 GB/s from the start, then write back at 176 GB/s once processed, in a large memory without limitation of size. Straight fast and simple.

Exactly.  He can claim that 50% more cores doesn't net you 50% more power, but he is ignoring the fact that the PS4 also has 50% more ROP's/TMU's/etc.  A matter of fact, the 7970 has double the cores of the 7850 and gues what?  It performs twice as well! 

Then add in the fact that the PS4 has WAY more bandwidth and hUMA, and it is easy to see how it will perform twice as well like some developers have directly suggested.  Get your heads out of the cloud people...

Yep again!  It is refreshing to see that some people do know what they are talking about and don't fall for MS's BS...

Albert Penello:

I was quickly corrected (both on the forum and from people at the office) for writing the wrong number.

The challenge with the NeoGAF format is that, because threads move so fast, posts disappear or get buried so people aren't reading everything. Maybe this part got lost:

I've stated - there is no possible way for one single person to know every detail about our platform. That means I need to go get the answers to the questions you guys ask sometimes. There's a lot I know first hand, and a lot I need to get updated on.

So people understand - I'm not dodging any of the follow-up. I actually stated the other night - there are a handful of people who asked some really legitimate follow-ups to understand what I posted. And I honestly said - I'm not the guy to answer at that level of detail. Out of respect for the people who are genuinely curious to learn how we derived those numbers, and to get the most technically accurate answers - the best course is to have the answers come from those engineers directly.

So we're working now on the best format to do that.

I still stand by what I stated (except for the aforementioned 204/218). In fact, some really interesting threads were going back and forth giving me even more excruciating detail behind those numbers based on the questions people asked.

I doubt it will take the format of an AMA, but I've collected a bunch of the follow-up questions. It may take a few weeks, but we'll be following-up on this for sure. 

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=81372357&postcount=632

a few weeks.. Thats pretty laughable.