My username is the same on EG as it is here.  I have been on that site for over 5 years or better.  I do not have to do any research because I have read every DF article.  This is why I ask you to provide proof instead of throwing around opinions that has no basics besides how you see it.  Either provide proof or just state its your opinion and leave it at that.  I do not have a problem with people saying this is how they see it.  But if you are going to make accusations, then its always best to have the proof to prove your words.

Hopfully this will not be like the last thread where you accuse Crytek of saying something which was something you made up in your own head and stated it as fact again.

How can I spread any false information since I never made a claim the PS4 GPU does anything non game related.  I asked you for proof that it doesn't.  Those are very different statements and it appears we will go on a long jorney of you not understanding context again.

My question remains the same, how do you know.  Where is the info, interview, tweet statements from Sony.  How do you know what the PS4 uses for non gaming features.  I care not about fanboy wars and who has the most power and all that crap.  I just like to know how these systems are made.  If you have this info then share it.  If not, then its just an opinion and we can leave it at that.

The PS4 OS didn't use GPU hardware accelaration like the Windows uses in Xbone... when you snap a Metro app in Xbone it uses some 3D effects to do that like any MS OS after Vista... you can rearch that the MS Metro UI is a hardware-accelerated GPU based UI.

PS4 OS lacks the snap feature... the OS is flat and simple without any 3D feature.

Apps, backgound process and everything else runs better on CPU... so why Sony will put these process into GPU? To run worst? I think any little knowledge about OS resources shows that.

And the CPU clock in PS4 was never confirmed... anyway I guess (that now a guess) the CPU in PS4 is more free than Xbone CPU even with lower clock because the Xbone needs to do a lot of calculations into CPU for OS and Kinect features... PS4 don't.

About the Audio features... both needs GPU for Raycasting Audio... and some little effects in audio will be done on CPU and not GPU.

GPU is 100% for game developers do what they want on PS4.

And you want backup? Cerny himself said "Developers can choose how to use all the 18CUs inside PS4"... no OS reservation.

That's the point... I'm providing you backup... the own DF articles lol... you want I make all the hard word for you just because you can't deal with the truth lol.

CryTek said... I proved that with the dev own words... anyway CryTek said even 250k triangles but they dropped to 150k at Ryse announce.

Because it is false information lol.

Maybe you lost everything released news about the OSs from MS and Sony... I don't how do you even read articles lol.

But ok I will give you source from a place that you said you always read but... well... just stop and start to reacher how the OSs works first.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-to-face-with-mark-cerny

Digital Foundry: Going back to GPU compute for a moment, I wouldn't call it a rumour - it was more than that. There was a recommendation - a suggestion? - for 14 cores [GPU compute units] allocated to visuals and four to GPU compute...

Mark Cerny: That comes from a leak and is not any form of formal evangelisation. The point is the hardware is intentionally not 100 per cent round. It has a little bit more ALU in it than it would if you were thinking strictly about graphics. As a result of that you have an opportunity, you could say an incentivisation, to use that ALU for GPGPU.

To you understand... the rumor was about how the devs can use the 18CUs in PS4... 14 for graphics and 4 for GPGPU... Cerny demystified saying all the CUs is open to devs to what they want even 1CU for graphics and 17 for GPGPU... there is nothing for the OS. 

You made the claim so you should be able to back it up.  I do not have to search because I have read all of the DF articles,  I am asking you to find the one article where Richard is saying something negative about the PS4.  Maybe you do not get it, but if you are going to make accusations, its probably best to have the proof to your assertions or its just your opinion.

Usually when people get their information from someone else, they cannot provide proof when they regurgitate that info.  This is what you are doing.  You are using GAF as your source of Info but when pressed to find one article, you cannot even do that.

You proved nothing with the Crytek article.  I am not going to waste time going over that one again.

LOL, so let me get this straight.  Richard pressed Mark on a rumor and Mark cleared it up and this is bias.

So what is the difference from this interview Richard had with MS engineer when he pressed about the ROPs

"Having attempted to comprehensively address questions about the ESRAM and system memory bandwidth of the architecture, the issue of the Xbox One's fill-rate and ROPs deficit compared to PlayStation 4 is now under the microscope. ROPs are the elements of the GPU that physically write the final image from pixel, vector and texel information: PlayStation 4's 32 ROPs are generally acknowledged as overkill for a 1080p resolution (the underlying architecture from AMD was never designed exclusively just for full HD but for other resolutions such as 2560x1400/2560x1600 too), while Xbox One's 16 ROPs could theoretically be overwhelmed by developers."

"In our interview, Microsoft revealed research it had carried out that suggested that the 6.6 per cent increase to GPU clock speed was more beneficial to the system than two additional AMD Radeon Graphics Core Next compute units. Our question was straightforward enough - were the results of these tests skewed by the code saturating the ROPs?"

Lets talk about the conclusion he makes about the ROPs

"Our take on the ROPs situation is that while these figures make perfect sense, there are many other scenarios that could be potentially challenging - depth-only passes, shadows, alpha test and Z pre-pass for example. But from a user perspective, the fact is that native 1080p isn't supported on key first-party titles like Ryse and Killer Instinct. Assuming this isn't a pixel fill-rate issue as Microsoft suggests, surely at the very least, this impacts the balanced system argument?"

Does not sound like he is in MS pocket or that he is drinking the MS Koolaid.  Instead what I find is that when people see something negative about the system of their choice, they blind themselves to everything else.

I just proved everything about Crytek claims with quotes from devs and videos... you just can't believe because you I don't know believe in Misterxmedia lol

Read this article for example...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ryse-runs-at-900p

Almost all the article shows Leadbetter bias... if you can't find I will start to quote... it is a small example (because I think you didn't remember the FFXIII article lol).

The title of this new article "Microsoft to unlock more GPU power for Xbox One developers" show bias... seems like they will boost the Xbone GPU when just confirm the Xbone GPU uses less 1.31TF for games.

Wait... what?

You ask for a source that PS4 is not using GPU for OS and you reply with that? Now I understand... you don't makes sense at all... logic is not is your strong point.

What GPU use in OS have to do with Leadbetter bias? Explain to me please.

PS. You you are confusing the subjects again.. please don't try to discuss two things at the same time lol

Side note MS is selling the Xbone with 1080p@60fps cinematic realism.

They forget to say that only one game will hit that target lol.