My argument once again is basically this.

The theoretical performance of the PS3 memory bandwith is 176GB/s when an actual game is running that dips.

Same thing goes for the Xbox One memory as well the ESRAM has a theoretical performance of 192GB/s by it self.

And also dips when a real game is thrown at it.

But it is still more than the PS4. This should allow more graphics on the Xbox one not by alot but still more which

should mean xbox one games should perform on par with ps4 games even though the ps4 gpu is faster by about

50%.

And for those out there that can't count, 50% does not mean the ps4 gpu is twice the power.

If the ps4 gpu was 100% more powerful that would make it twice as fast.

Finally developers are saying that the ESram is too small for 1080p 60fps.

I just think developers just don't know how to use the esram effeciently as they are more used to DDR ram.

My argument is that once they get the new SDKs (software development kits) from microsoft

developers will be able to reach the level we see on ps4 because Microsoft knows how to use the esram more effeciently.

After all microsoft made their own system they should know how to use it to the full.

ESRAM 192GB/s, MORE than PS4s 176GBs.

PS4 fanboys resort to saying than the human eye can't determine the difference between 720p and 1080p anyway.

"Maybe never"

http://gamingbolt.com/titanfall-xbox-one-may-never-get-resolution-increase-respawn-discusses-future-updates

They are probably trying to get it to run at a solid 60fps.

in 3d!

LOL! That is probably what they will say for real. ROFL!

GOOD POST THANKS. ROFL

And your argument is completely irrelevelant. It doesn't matter matter how much faster ESDRAM is when size of ESDRAM is so tiny. If ESDRAM would be 1 GB then it would completely different matter... And you can't make ESDRAM any bigger with software updates.

If you would know anything about technology then you would know that size of RAM is more important than speed of RAM. If programmers would have a choice between 2 GB RAM  with 1200 GB/s speed and 4 GB RAM with 400 GB/s speed, they would always choose 4 GB RAM although it is much slower. 

If a game gets to 1080p 60fps, they should simply raise its visual fidelity and make it 30fps imo, that would be much nicer. Unless it's a first person shooter.

Ha! the same thing I always say.

(1) Beginning of the gen PS4 has better resolutions, frames per second and overall better stability.
(2) Middle of the gen, when 1080p and 60fps is easier to achieve on BOTH platforms. PS4 exclusives will shine showing the extra power.
(3) End of the generation PS4 will have longer legs.

In all cases PS4 is the clear winner.

PS4 No paywalls to basic features no other hardware paywalls like internet browser, streaming services & skype (add one guide, video capture, free to play games to the list for xbox)

Exclusives all generation unlike microsoft which proved they will rake in billions per year on XBL and then not deliver. Almost no exclusives the last 4 years in a row HALF IT'S LIFE

Free exclusive content on all the best multi platform games. Destiny, Watchdogs, Assassins Creed & Metal Gear. (this is not new, PS3 had it in almost all the best multi plats)

Huge free games via PS+

Exclusives not on PC

The mmu has four 256bit controlers, running at 853MHz. This gives a theoretical peak bandwidth of 109GByte/s. It is completely irrelevant that MS pr throws around slides that show numbers like 192, 204,209,218,277 GB/s, depending on the weather, the political situation in Zimbabwe, time of day or whatever. No engineer involved in that miracle technology has come forward yet to explain these numbers, and no question has ever been answered in any (tech) forums, or when someone (like me) directly inquired about these numbers.

Once again different TYPES of ram. Static RAM operates differently from DDR RAM

Xbox Ones ESRAM 192GB/s, MORE than PS4s 176GBs.