And remember that MS said that it "discovered" that reverse transfer of info was "free" only late in development, so Move Engines that handle memory loads/unloads are not designed with that workload in mind.  This is besides the fact that the quoted ESRAM max bandwidth only applies if both directions of transfer are maxed out.  You can write a test program to do that easily enough, but in an actual game, there will often not be any use value to using the reverse direction fully, so that theoretical bandwidth just isn't helpful, in addition to the impediments to actually reaching that theoretical peak.  XBone devs have an extra restriction on their work, that they need to optimize everything around the ESRAM, yet doing so doesn't achieve any real benefit vs. PS4 whose GDDR can do the same thing without jumping thru hoops (32MB sized hoops).  PS4 devs can also consider other approaches to graphics that simply wouldn't be compatable with 32MB ESRAM limitations.

Your second point is missing a major thing: XBone's ESRAM is PHYSICALLY displacing GPU cores, it takes up die space that Sony uses for 50% more GPU cores.  That is the power loss, because the power JUST ISN'T THERE in XBone.  What that power is used for is up to the dev, PS4 has alot more flexibility because it has like 8x the number of GPGPU threads that let the GPU be used for standard graphics, physics, sound raycasting, even AI.  That can use aspects of GPU cores that are temporarily not used by their graphics function, or actually take over a core from graphics functions.  (An interesting use is using GPGPU to more efficiently achieve graphics than standard shader models allow)

If MS wanted to convince anybody that ESRAM allowed them to achieve parity (much less superiority) to PS4, they should release actual game memory bandwidth figures.
Ryse, for one. Battlefield 4 would be an apples-to-apples comparision. I'm sure EA wouldn't have a problem releasing that if MS requested them to, as well as Sony.
But MS has stopped trying that pointless excercise. They now say "it is about the games" (that we used our millions to prevent from going to the superior platform).
Of course, it couldn't also be about the games that won't show up on XBone. Secret Sauce = Microsoft Kool-Aid.

 Eh.. What can we do? Denial still exists even when it shouldn't..

Here's my take. I really think MS thought that they had the next Wii on their hands. I think they charted a course, started swimming and once they got out there in the bluest ocean they could find, there were only a few fish. Now they don't know what to do because they weren't properly prepared to have to swim back into the feeding frenzy.

Everything about Xbone, from it's dashboard to Kinect, to it's over use of TV and the NFL, to it's architecture just screams "blue ocean". I honestly don't think they anticipated the industry going back to the PS2 era. Now, they're struggling to figure out a way to compete with a system (PS4) which was designed and marketed from the GET GO, to attracted core gamers and it's not working.

LOL

Sony got lucky with their gamble on unified GDDR memory. 

If PS4 had 4GB total, much less the 2GB that was first planned (?), that would have had signifigant impact on gaming.

In that context, MS' choice seemed a reasonable, non-risky choice, simply for gaming and not accounting for Windows multitasking etc.

But Sony was able to increase the GDDR to match MS' 8GB (MS could plausibly add more, but it wouldn't really help much).

So they (Sony) ended up with parity in all areas, and significant advantages in others.

It's actually not.

People are comparing bandwidth numbers and screaming "PS4 wins" but it's not as black and white as that.

The Xbox One by it's very nature of having less compute hardware, requires less bandwidth to begin with.

As for the eSRAM, it does have benefits, what and how big those benefits are won't become apparant untill another few years into the consoles life cycle, it's not a cure for all of the Xbox One's performance ill's however.

The point is all moot really in the end, the Xbox One is indeed slower than the Playstation 4, however it's still going to output fantastic games, first party developers such as 343 industries will still push the hardware, with a high probability of making them look better than the multiplats.

Still, the eSRAM isn't a bottleneck like many on this forum now are under the assumption of, it doesn't slow or hold the system back which is what a bottleneck implies, it does however make development harder, but if developers don't wish to use it, they have the choice not to, I would assume most developers would be using it for stuff like render targets, colour, depth, stencil buffers. etc'.

However with that in mind... Looking at this thread and seeing so many people worry about specifications and performance rather than the games... It makes you wonder why they bother with any console and thus by extension put up with only 720P/1080P resolutions.

Good post, and it does smell a bit like this.  BUT, it IS still early.  

If Microsoft was willing to eat the extra 100 dollars sooner than later, who knows.  Although I sense they would be very reluctant to do so... There are a lot of people who want to get a next gen system who don't have a clue about power, etc.  They might just like the Microsoft "box" etc.  So still too early to tell.

Another good post.  I'm an electrical engineer, and I bought an Xbox One knowing full well what the system specs were (to be fair though, I plan to get a PS4 too down the road).  The reason I DID buy the Xbox One had nothing to do with power.  It had to do with friend network, controller, and my HOPE the Microsoft will really dig into their wallet to concentrate on the server side of things.  I have to admit, I couldn't give a rats ass about the Kinect at the moment.  Hopefully they can change that.

I tought you would say that you didn't bought because you didn't find any at the time =]