mine said:
Both PS4 AND XOne are very similar in performance.

Most people don't get it - 50% more GPU power may make the environment look brighter, but not the AI acting in it.
 

Nope they aren't very similar in performance, PS4 having a GPU with 40% more performance, 4X the ACEs to take full advantage of the downtime between rendering graphics for Physics and AI, basically any kind of math used in a game, along with have over 3X the bandwidth to it's large RAM pool will make a huge difference compared to XBox One.

AMD already showed back in 2009 that their GPUs from the 4800 series onwards can be coded easily to handle AI.

Ubisoft was disappointed as they expected to be able to calculate 10 TIMES more AIs !!

Because they didn't use the right tool for the job, they used an aging engine (AnvilNext has been used since like Assassin's Creed 3 released back in 2012), that was designed to run AI code on the CPU on consoles that can run AI, Physics and any kind of compute on the GPU.

Hell if AnvilNext had been updated to run AI code on the GPU like it should then Wii U probably could have run ACU at 720p, with some graphical downgrades, PS4 was touching 60FPS in the rooftop areas, Ubisoft even said themselves that running the AI on the CPU was the problem, yet they had features in the hardware to move it to the GPU. In their own words Ubisoft Montreal said that the game could have run at 100FPS if the AI wasn't an issue. Given the superior GPU power in PS4 it should have been able to run the game at 1080p 60FPS no problem, even down in the crowds, but they failed to optimize the game and their engine properly.

Both consoles feature notebook cores combined with a middle class desktop GPU. Depending on how the game mechanics and world works XOne (more CPU calculations) or PS4 (more GPU calculations) is better.

GPU can be used for any big math or even small math, CPU is maybe the better tool for fine grain tasks, but that doesn't mean that GPU can't do them either, both parts work concurrently in both consoles.

It will needs years to adapt CPU code to GPUs. It is much easier to make CPU code more efficient.

Nope it's here already, devs can already use it, straight up, but taking full advantage of it will take time. Games should be built right from the start with Async Compute in mind, systems can be used built into engines as standard to make it essentially an automated part of the process.

 
If Microsoft frees CPU resources by disabling OS tasks or moving to a more efficient graphics stack this will help every single game.

Whereas each Sony developer has to take the burden to move their own code to the GPU to "catch up" with a faster XOne CPU...

Nope Sony can do exactly the same, they have 2 CPU cores in reserve, only a portion of one is probably needed for OS tasks and given that PS4 has a real time OS it can shrink when you're running a game.

Given that these Jaguar cores are all the same, only use tiny wattages, the gap between XB1's CPU and PS4's is small, like less than a 10% performance on the XB1 side, the GPU can easily compensate for that, but if need be Sony could add the marginal overclock, without incurring any major heat increase.

In the world of TDP we're probably not even talking more than a degree or so to match XB1's CPU, not that it's needed.

 
At the end the XOne has a better balanced hardware from a developers perspective. Only beaten by the Wii U (which does wonders for its raw power)...

Not even close, PS4 has the better balance, with it's GPU being perfecly suited to AI, Physics and Graphics, it's a definite multi-purpose tool for developers, the memory system is more than 3X faster than DDR3 in Xbox One and developers don't have to try to compensate for this inadequate level of storage and bandwidth to the GPU.

Seriously a 7770 has a dedicated 1-2GBs at 72GB/s, Xbox One's GPU has more hardware than that, but memory contension is a huge issue on XB1, given that the CPU takes like 20GB/s, leaving the GPU with only 35GB/s from XB1's available 5GBs of DDR3, yes there's eSRAM, but 32MBs at 140-150GB/s isn't a lot, trying to use that for graphics is going to continue to be a pain, trying to use it for physics and AI as well will be even more of a nightmare.

Of course devs will get better at using it, but the fact PS4's pulling so much further ahead in the software sales front means developers will focus on coding in the best way for the market leader.

PC can also take advantage of GPU processing for AI and Physics, it's not as hard as you make out and having a console like PS4 just means developers are more incentivised to refine their coding processes for it.

 
Too bad Sony managed to brainwash people with misleading numbers and getting around failing to deliver the software which proves their claims.

Misleading numbers?

LMFAO this has got to be a troll post?

You realise that Tomorrow Children uses async compute for ray tracing right?

You realise that AMD already showed that AI can be done on the GPU with their Froblins demo right? That was back in 2009.

Sony has announced more new games, exclusive for PS4 than Microsoft has for XB1.

You're not getting games like WiLD, Rime, Uncharted, The Order, Driveclub and whatever else Sony has in development on the Xbox One. Taking full advantage of this stuff will take time, SDK 2.0 just got released with the last major update for PS4, so developers will take a bit of time to incorporate it into games, but it'll happen.

The only people being brainwashed is the Xbox Fanboy community with their own rhetoric, like MisterXMedia and his split personality "Insider" or "MisterCTeam".

You meant this thread, obviously, and evaded a direct answer to my post. Yes, there are always people who are remote to tech and think tables will change. There also people who say otherwise and they don't know what they are talking about, too. They are on both sides. Difference is that most PS4 fans are mostly wrong in why PS4 is stronger and Xbone fans are wrong by default if they say MS will close the gap :)

What is sure is that MS closed the gap in the quality of their XDK which led to better looking games. This gets clear if you read the "What's new"-sections in the leaked docs. This made multiplatform-titles look better in comparison to launch games to their PS4 counter parts which leads people to think MS closes the gap in hardware while it is the XDK which got better so devs could use the Xbone hardware better than before.

Did I really evaded your question? By not specifing it was the thread I read, wich I did read it, or by not giving you a ridiculous list of names of people oon the thread?

What is your stance on the performance gap by the way? Could you say what this one extra core means in comparison to the ps4?

So... The ps3 exclusives must have looked a lot worse than the 360 exclusives...

my opinion, it isnt something to argue or care about.  i am more concerned about the exclusive content deals publishers are making rather than these tiny details that I would literally need to have both versions side by side and pausing and zooming in in order to see the differences...

You know thats not what I meant. I even say multyplats. Everybody knows that the ps3 exclusives where better. The point is that this new secret sauce is all about fighting for multyplats.

But I agree with you, iin the end they will use their deep pockets to get exclusive deals. But it dosent matter much for me, true first party exclusive will always perform better and tend to be more enjoyable, less microtransactions and all other crap then third party exclusives. Its just that first party developers tend to really pour their heart into the project most of the time.

PS4 is more powerful but the difference we saw at launch games is currently not as big because the XDK evolved fast and MS even introduced a new driver.

Adding a core will, of course, be beneficial. In which way we don't know and will also depend on the game itself. If CPU cores weren't crucial, why not remove one? 5 should be ok, I guess? Because it's only the GPU that is important, right? Wait, let's make it only 4 cores. Should be enough as the CPUs have way less GFlops than the GPU. Right?

Thing is, of course CPUs are crucial and important but we don't know how much exactly and it relies on how devs design their game.

I would give you an explanation if a 2015 game uses the additional core on a multiplatform game and I get my hands on profiling data. But I doubt many would understand it.