BUT Kowneiki says MS always does everything better and SOny does not do da cloudZ.....

It is obvious SOny is investing into clioud tech as well. Only the blind try to say otherwise.

Raised my hopes then crushed them!! damn you OP!!!!! DAMN YOU!!!

I believe it never was a question of whether Sony is investing i the cloud, its how much can they invest.  Unless your cloud service is making you money its a cost to the business.  Spending to much before you have the install base is risky.  At this time, Sony is on the road to profitbility so incurring anything that is a cost at this point in time can be very risky for Sony.  How much can Sony invest is one area I am very interested in because no matter how you cut it, a cloud infrastructure, even if you are renting is costly.

Actually, he is agreeing with me.  When he says "It has a little be more ALU than it would if you were strictly thinking about graphics... ." (emphasis added)  It implies the GPU would be used for GPGPU purposes.  Not saying that the additional four CUs can't be used for rendering, simply that at 14 CUs you're saturating the memory bandwidth.  You only have 176GB/s that you can pipe data through.  That's peak efficiency, something not realized in the realworld.  At 80% efficiency you get 140GB/s (80% of the PS4's 176GB/s) through that pipe.  Since the PS4 has 50% more CUs than the Xbox One's GPU, and at 12 CUs the Xbox One is generating 146GB/s, then it stands to reason that at 50% more power the PS4 would saturate the 176GB/s if all 18 CUs are running (219GB/s).   

Again, doesn't mean you can't, just you're not doing yourself any favors if you do.   You're going to run into a bottleneck.

If it has, as you've said, been disproven please provide a link.

If you have some magical way where you can fit 219GB into a 140GB hole, than please tell us how you do it.  I'm sure there are a lot of people would love to know how it can be done.

Unh?

I thought it would have.

I hope Sonys first party games will in the future.

95% of Launch Xbox One games have Dedicated servers.

lol so what's your reasoning that the 2.56 tflop 20 cu amd 7870 has a memory bandwidth of 154gb/s. Did amd somehow engineer a gimped "unbalanced" gpu? 

Are you for real? The Radeon 7870 GPU has 20 CU's and only a 154Gb peak bus bandwidth yet it's rated at roughly 2.5 Teraflops. So going by your maths how fast would the bus bandwidth be at 80% effeminacy? So what magic are AMD using? Maybe they have a DGPU secretly hidden or even stacked? But you have to wait till the 29th of Nov for the NDA to lift.

As far as I'm concerned your just trolling as anyone with any common sense knows that GPU CU's are the same. They can all be used for graphics or physics or a combination of both. Also you convieniantly forgot to add the quote where Cerny states that when certain parts of the GPU are idle or not running at 100% they can be utilised for GPGPU work!

*Effeciency

Argh! typing too fast *Efficiency

FLOP =  Floating-point Operations Per Second.   It's math.  The ability to do 2.56TFlops of calculations by a processor has nothing to do with what it is able to do in terms of actual rendering.  The act of pulling graphical data in, performing computational changes and pushing graphical data out.  Not saying graphics don't involve lots of math but the calulations are internal to the processor with a small amount of data going to the memory for temporary storage. 

GPUs by nature aren't balanced.  In some cases you can purchase the equivalent GPU with both GDDR5 and DDR3 memory.  How can the same chip be balanced when inherently the two memory architectures do not have the same memory bandwidth?  The point of not making the GPUs balanced is so developers can do some GPGPU work via the GPU.  Scaling of graphical data for instance can be done on the GPU as a part of a GPGPU function, utilizing those extra CUs. 

There are bottlenecks in computers.  There always have been.  GPUs are no different.  Raw power has NEVER been the be-all-end-all determination of how well a system performs because at the very end of the day it's how that power gets used.  The PS3 was a perfect example of this.  Raw power wise the PS3, other than the GPU, was leaps and bounds ahead of the Xbox 360's Xenon processor.  There is absolutely no debate about this.  However, the fact that the Xbox 360 had unified memory, as well as the EDRAM meant the console could perform just as well as the PS3 if not at times better. 

Back in the day (I don't know if it still exists) there was a great discussion regarding the PS3 GPU and Xbox 360 GPU and initially the prevailing thought was based on the raw numbers that the PS3 would have a material advantage.  Then someone came along and actually compared the two systems based on the amount of work the two systems would be able to do.  Taking into account the memory bandwidth, the CPU, the performance of the GPU including the shaders.  The assessment was that the PS3 would barely be able to do 1xAA if not 2xAA, and 4xAA would be out of the question.  With the Xbox 360 the determination was it would be hard pressed to do 4xAA but actually could do 2x(2xAA) more efficiently. 

And the results were evident early on.  PS3 games tended to be jaggy until developers were able to do MSAA on the PS3.  And even still, MSAA isn't as good as AA but it required much less computation on the GPU.  So, games on the PS3 tended to be less sharp than the Xbox 360 games. 

So to your question and point.  Yes, I am saying the memory bus is a bottleneck.  If Microsoft is saying for performance reasons it is a bottle neck, than it would be a bottleneck for Sony as well.  Just not necessarily at the same point.  Sony's recommendation (not requirement) for a balanced approach was to use 14 CUs for graphical rendering and 4 CUs for GPGPU operations.  Sony hasn't denied this.  The only thing they have said is it isn't a requirement, that developers can approach things however they want.  But my guess is that's why you're seeing Kill Zone drop in frame rate at times on the PS4. 

Unless you have a plausable reason why KZ drops down to 30FPS?