I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'll believe it when I see it. I heard the same sort of talk when it comes to PS3 vs Xbox 360, and the differences ended up being minimal and only really manifested in exclusives here. This isn't Wii to PS3 differences we're talking about here. So far the differences (and bragging rights) have literally been coming down to minor differences in resolution. 900p and 1080p....only the graphics obsessed care about or notice that crap. It certainly is NOT proof that PS4 is "by far the superior console." To say otherwise, well, at the moment that's dreaming.

Maybe the differences will manifest themselves more strongly one day. But given that they haven't from the outset, I don't think they will ever be that great.

naah, it's not the same : PS3 and 360 are very similar in overall performance, with 360 having a better GPU, more powerful and advanced, while PS3 has the Cell to help the weaker RSX of the PS3; all in all, 360 is the most balanced hardware and more freindly to develop for; that was a completely different situation.

Hardware of PS4 is there, X1 hardware is there, believe what you want.

1st party Devs will show all the difference year after year. And most probably the Gap will be even more evident between Sony and MS 1st Party games as we approach the end of this Gen.  

Funny, that's not what all the Sony fanboys were saying when the PS3 was relevant. XD

What your saying about the PS4 and Xbox One, however, pretty much sounds exactly like the PS3/360 rhetoric I heard for more than half a decade.

All this bragging about graphical superiority is meaningless until it's shown in an actual game. So you can believe what you want, but I'll believe what I see. PS4 can be ten times the power of Xbox One, but it won't matter until the developers actually do something with that.

Hardware

The Cell was powerful. Tit for Tat it beat out 360 cpu and gpu seperatly.

The reason why 360 had more real world performance was because

1. Cell was more propreitary, harder to develop for

2. Cell was making up for the weaker RSX that was simply added last minute because without a GPU the PS3 would be DOA

This time the PS4 is confirmed to have better specs in areas relevant to games (ram, architecture) as opposed to clock speed, and is easier to develop for cause it doesn't have the ESRAM thing.

In fact its nothing like last gen, since the xbox one is harder to develop for (because of esram) then the PS4, and its weaker than the PS4 in terms of processing capability, its OC cpu is 1.5 times faster, but that can be done SW and the XO and PS4 use virtually the same HW, the only reason the PS4s isn't OC, is because it isn't neccessary right now.

This isn't a matter of opinion its fact, so if you are waiting for a game to prove it to you, don't waste your breath. Nearly every game released this gen on multiplatform has advantage PS4, and even if it is slight, its only reasonable to assume it will grow, especially when only XB1 has been playing catch up...aside from Firmware, the PS4 now is the same as it was at launch, no DX12, no OC cpu, there has probably been an SDK update but nothing newsworthy.

Fact is if you don't read any of this, it really doesn't matter what you believe, if you are trying to buy the most powerful console ergo the best multiplats, you know what that is, and its never going to change so it makes the decision easy. If you want to buy the console with the game you want, you know what that is. If you want to buy a console with features the other one doesn't have, you know what that is. 

That bit about the Xbox 360 vs PS3 is interesting. And I do hope PS4 vs Xbox One is different, as you say.

But still, none of that will matter until a game on the PS4 actually does something significant that the Xbox One can't do. Until that happens, it just DOESN'T MATTER. A game doing 1080p instead of 900p isn't going to matter to anyone except the graphics obsessed, and those people would be better off buying a high-end PC anyway.

You know what graphical differences DO matter?

Xbox over PS2. Xbox got loads of games that PS2 could not handle, and received multiplatform games that were completely different and superior to their PS2 counter parts. PS2 could not handle Doom 3 or Chronicles of Riddick or Splinter Cell. In the case of the latter the PS2 actually needed its own version designed from the ground up.

SNES over Genesis. Genesis could do Mode 7 game which opened up entirely new game play experiences to it. Genesis had nothing like Mario Kart of F-Zero, (at least until Pier Solar did it in a mini game a few years ago). The differences in colors and the number of sprites on screen were also significant.

This gen? We are literally talking about slight differences in resolution. XD Until PS4 receives an exclusively that looks significantly better than anything on Xbox One, that Xbox One could not handle without SIGNIFICANT downgrades, all this talk of hardware superiority is pointless.

And since I think I'm just reiterating that at this point, I guess I have nothing new to add.

Until PS4 gets that magical game that Xbox One cannot handle, I don't think I have anything else to say on this. :P

Very true. Not enough for anyone to care.

Totally different story. PS3 actually had the weaker GPU overall as well as less free RAM for games.

CPU was a thing. CELL was meant for graphics tasks from the beginning. In the end only a few first party games used it properly for shiny graphics. For multiplat that probably would have needed far to much extra work and even on the Sony side basically only Guerilla and Naughty Dog managed to do that right.

Now we do have 43% difference in shader power (what really matters like 95% of the time), faster RAM (probably overestimated) on PS4 side, al slightly faster CPU and, without Kinect slightly less CPU usage on Xbox One side. So on the hardware side both consoles might be not twins but at least brothers.

Software side will be interesting for the rest of the gen. DirectX 12 will have far less overhead. Especially for GPGPU. PSSL and GNM/GNMX seems to be better in some of those points right now.

Not to talk about drivers. Yeah, they can make some difference.

So seeing the software side improve will be the interesting part from now on. It's just that Sony basically can optimize the software as well as Microsoft.

As for real differences: 900p vs. 1080p, some more grass here, some more frames there. Basically that's it. Both are far to close together to have any actual real difference.

Just for the uninformed. hUMA belongs to HSA and is a feature every GCN GPU has and DirectX 12 utilises.

So, there will never be 100% parity. But there will as well never be Xbox/PS2 like differences as well.

If that stupid little difference bothers you, go, buy a good rig with a GTX980, R9 290X or the upcoming 390X. Now that is a difference.

I said "if".  I agree with you we're probably never going to see parity...

Made me lol, rare to see a poll so definitive on here, altho the question the OP is asking is "is this short piece of string almost as long as that longer piece of string now?" So tis pretty clear what the answer should be.

OT - No.