a) For Christ's sake, we have the dieshots of the PS4 and XOne. We know both consoles use the identical core designs. Those two consoles perform pretty much exactly as the TFlops predict.
They are not using identical core designs. Far from it.
The Xbox One has the ESRAM which takes up a rather large chunk of the transistor budget.
The Playstation 4 has extra ACE units.
The Xbox One also features the texture mapping standards from the Xbox 360 baked into hardware.
The Playstation 4 includes extra functional CU units.
Identical core designs? Common.
b) No, bottlenecks are bottlenecks are bottlenecks. By changing to a higher resolution (a SOFTWARE change), an already existing HARDWARE bottleneck MIGHT emerge that was not noticable in the lower resolution.
A GPU might not be bottlenecked at say... 1080P because the fillrate it has is enough to keep up at that resolution, but increase that resolution to say... 1440P, suddenly the fillrate comes up shorter, yet the GPU might still have enough compute and geometry capabilities to handle the task... So reducing things such as texture resolution may have a linear increase in performance.
There are other instances where increasing resolution and visual settings will introduce additional cache thrashing, there is a reason why AMD and nVidia are constantly re-using, re-clocking, re-balancing GPU designs in order to remove bottlenecks.
For example... AMD took the Vega 64, cut back the GPU's pixel pipelines and texture mapping units... However AMD retained the number of Render Output Pipelines and increased clockrates with the Vega 7 GPU.
Which means that AMD increased ROP performance in total by about 4.3%, reduced compute and texturing by about 6.5% and increased bandwidth by 112% as AMD's modelling showed that Vega 7's bottleneck laid in the ROP/Memory section of the GPU rather than the compute or texturing.
And please stop babbling around the issue. You are constantly putting forth weird examples to make straw man arguments. As JRPGFan wrote, the same architecture in core design is the key. and he is absolutely right that under that condition, TFlops is a good way of relating gaming performance.
My "babbling" about the issue is usually in response to other people "babbling" about the issue.
Either way... You are not my real mom, you can't tell me what to do.
Two computers with similar architectures (similar not exact microarchitectures) can be accurately compared and we know ROM is SSD for both. We know both will be using relatively the same CPU. The only contentious area is the GPU and the RAM (type and amount).
ROM is Read-Only Memory. That is not an SSD... SSD's are based on NAND, not ROM and thus are able to perform writes.
Nintendo will typically use ROM for it's game carts for that very reason rather than NAND... Mostly because ROM isn't prone to bit flipping like NAND and thus is more reliable for data retention.
You are right that I don't know how knowledgeable Permalite et al are. I only see the meandering around the issue in their posts.
As to call to authority ("He knows much more than you do"), it might surprise you that I actually designed and built computers and parts (Gepard, for example, that brand is certainly completely unknown nowadays) before Permalite was even born. By designing and building I actually mean start with a white sheet of paper (actually mm-grid-paper), draw the layout, transfer the layout to uv-transparent foils, transfer the foil layouts onto copper boards, develop the boards (might have cost a few brain cells, that part wasn't particularly healthy), edge the boards, populate the good boards with chips, (restart if it doesn't work), the full program. Those were the good old times of hand-made computers...
You don't know what my qualifications or experience is, they may trump everything you have listed by several orders of magnitude, age has nothing to do with that.
I was using Atari 2600's when they were cool. I designed 8-bit Microcontrollers and controlled robots that I designed and built.
I was programming in Beginners All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code on the commodore 64 creating rudimentary "games" leveraging ASCII.. And this was all before I was even in high-school.
I was there when the hardware accelerated 3D revolution took off, which got kickstarted by 3dfx. - I was there when TnL was the big buzzword in gaming graphics with the Geforce 256, I was using PC's before Windows 95 or NT even existed with the now-familiar interfaces.
Don't assume I am ignorant when it comes to technology.
Nor does it mean yours or mine past experience has any bearing on technology aspects of today, things are different now if you haven't been paying attention... Especially as we enter the Ray Tracing era.
At the end of the day, FLOPS is irrelevant, there are so many examples I have provided where even identical GPU's with the same flops will have half the performance... And if you have as much "experience" as you say you do... You should know this as a basic fundamental factoid.