Let me ask you something.  How do you know he got shredded.  Without having the knowledge if the people responding actually know what they are talking about you can easily make that mistake.  After reading a few comments its clear a lot of them do not know what they are talking about and most cannot even make a simple google search to be sure what they are saying is correct.  This is the problem with the net is that people regurgitate information from other people who do not know what they are talking about and you get number to junk.

So the first link was from an Xbox developers that says Sony has the better specs.  Here is a quote from that link (basically the article if you read it)

"“The facts are on paper, the PS4 has better specs, and the most that you can debate is by how much,” said the refreshingly candid employee. “What I can tell you is that I have played Forza Motorsport 5,Killer Instinct, and Ryse on the Xbox One, and they look as good as the games that I play on a high-end PC. Ryse reminded me of Darksiders II.”"

The second link is from a developer who is not making a X1 game which invalidate your bolded point.  You bolded points says developers who has worked on both X1 and PS4 games.  The developer in the second link is stating specs not first hand experience which is very clear from the article.

The third one is from another developer that pretty much validated Albert point.  Here is a quote from the article

"We asked Avalanche’s chief technical officer Linus Blomberg how the two consoles compare. “It’s difficult to say, as it’s still early days when it comes to drivers,” he told us. “With each new driver release, performance increases dramatically in some areas. The PlayStation 4 environment is definitely more mature currently, so Microsoft has some catching up to do. But I’m not too concerned about that as they traditionally have been very good in that area. The specs on paper would favour the PS4 over the Xbox One in terms of raw power, but there are many other factors involved so we’ll just have to wait and see a bit longer before making that judgment.”

If anything, the only thing you did was provide more proof of what Albert is stating instead of anything else.

So you're saying that PS4 is better at dance or fitness games for example?  What about quirky indie games that take advantage of features the Xbox One has that PS4 either can't do as well or can't do at all?  Apparently one of the best HD games shown so far is Titanfall and that features graphics that while good aren't pushing the system by any means yet it's completely owning the PS4 lineup in terms of awards and media attention.

"The CPU contained within the PS4 is running stock speeds, 1.6ghz compared to Microsofts 1.75 after an upclock - 150mhz does not make up for the different in number of CUs, and (aptly ignored by Albert) the difference in ROP units - hence why even with the 150mhz upclock, the Xbox One is still way behind in terms of raw power - To see just how little difference 150mhz makes, go into your bios and bump your clock speed up to be 150mhz faster, you will see framerates climb barely 2fps at best - most modern CPUs clock to at least 400mhz higher than stock as an average, with some people bumping that to over 900mhz.

But seriously, before you try and tell me im wrong, he is comparing 1.6 to 1.75 and claiming its 10% faster, asside from being factually wrong (10% would be 1.76ghz), it also compares the cpus on the most basic of levels, which is a stupid thing to do, even more so given that theyre APUS - compare a 2ghz celeron to a 2ghz pentium to see why.

Last but not least adding up the ddr3 and esram speeds to get a higher number is universally seen as a retarded pr stunt by those with half a brain because theoretical peaks for different ram types DO NOT COMBINE - just like if you put two 3ghz xeons in a server, it does NOT mean that the server is now running at 6ghz, its running at 3ghz with additional cores - adding ddr3 and the tiny space allotted by esram does not work, even for "on paper" results - you cannot fill the 8gb of ddr3 with the esram fast enough without the esram being bottlednecked, esram could not be used for a large majority of game resources, where as GDDR5 can be used for just about anything at the cost of slightly higher latency."

Another person who struggles to comprehend a deviation of the OP.

This has nothing to do with Penello dude. This is simply about whether or not developers have cited a performance advantage, which they have repeatedly. I mean, fuck, I can grab 100 more sources if you want or maybe you will actually do some research yourself.