Kepler corroborated MLiD's comments on PS6/handheld/Xbox-next's specs. And he agrees with me on Xbox (Magnus) beating PS6 universally or near-universally this time:

"I don't see how PS6 can match Magnus, it has fewer CPU cores, lower CPU frequency, fewer CUs, fewer ROPs, lower GPU frequency, less cache and memory bandwidth. It's not a huge difference but Magnus should have better performance in 100% of games unlike this gen where it's more of a 50/50"

For PS6 to have an "optimization" edge, it needs to beat Xbox in important hardware areas.

The less effort devs put into the Xbox ports, the more likely you will see outcomes like this. You don't need matching hardware to have an optimisation edge. None of the disparities below can be explained through the Xbox/PS5 hardware differences. It's just a poor port on the Xbox side. This is not to say Xbox won't have a clear advantage next gen in most games but you can't discount optimisation as a variable

More power won't mean squat if Sony has the commanding market-share which means developers will prioritize it over Xbox.

Xbox Series X is a good deal faster than the PS5... But for the most part, the difference in the real world is inconsequential/non-existent, which was always my expectation (And I made the claim) before the current generation hardware was even unveiled.

No, what I meant was that the next Xbox being hundreds of dollars more expensive almost-guarantees that it will be superior by a decent margin, that no amount of "optimization" can put the PS6 ahead in any scenario. It would be hilarious if Xbox cost $300-$400 more than a PS6 and still end up not soundly outperforming it in the real world. PS3 was an embarrassment for the initial price (ignore backwards compatibility and its media player capabilities), but these are different times and neither Sony nor MS would dare doing some crazy Ken shit like 2006 Cell + Bluray lol.

But since you mentioned it... Yes, I do believe that Sony generally is better than Microsoft at making superior hardware for the production cost (not to be confused with retail price). PS3 was the exception and a bit of a disaster. Ken Kutaragi messed up big time. Microsoft never made money from Xbox hardware, not even from the expensive One X (suggesting high production costs), but they're apparently changing this by pricing their products really high.

Ironically though... If Trump's Tariff Tantrums (TTT) continue, and Microsoft doesn't tackle the problem like Sony or Nintendo, we might actually witness a situation where a $1000 would not be enough to guarantee more power than a $700 PS6. It's hard to say where we're going. 

I disagree that Sony is generally better... 4 generations:

- The Play Station 2 and Original Xbox were probably on par (also very hard to really compare as they were simply totally different architectures).
- The Xbox 360 was vastly superior (production cost, easy to develop for the same result, etc) than the Play Station 3 (you call it an exception, but it is basically the same for the Xbox One generation then...)
- The Play Station 4 was vastly superior to the Xbox One (production cost but also power); not even close.

So far, it is pretty much even.

And then you come into this generation with Sony having a HUGE market lead, which pushes everyone to develop mostly targeting the PlayStation 5 and will make better use of the hardware.
I would definitely argue that the Xbox Series X was the most expensive to produce because it is simply more powerful.
Microsoft may have underestimated how difficult it would be (if not impossible) to get back any market share from Sony, but their hardware is definitely very good this time. 

I disagree that Sony is generally better... 4 generations:

- The Play Station 2 and Original Xbox were probably on par (also very hard to really compare as they were simply totally different architectures).
- The Xbox 360 was vastly superior (production cost, easy to develop for the same result, etc) than the Play Station 3 (you call it an exception, but it is basically the same for the Xbox One generation then...)
- The Play Station 4 was vastly superior to the Xbox One (production cost but also power); not even close.

So far, it is pretty much even.

And then you come into this generation with Sony having a HUGE market lead, which pushes everyone to develop mostly targeting the PlayStation 5 and will make better use of the hardware.
I would definitely argue that the Xbox Series X was the most expensive to produce because it is simply more powerful.
Microsoft may have underestimated how difficult it would be (if not impossible) to get back any market share from Sony, but their hardware is definitely very good this time. 

OG Xbox was considerably more powerful than the PS2, it wasn't even close. The gap there was the biggest between the two ever.

Original Xbox came out almost 2 years after the PS2, and cost Microsoft billions of dollars of losses.

X360 was a better designed console than PS3. No argument here.

PS4 was much better than Xbox One, because the hardware made profit despite being much more powerful.

The One X launching a year after PS4 Pro and selling much worse didn't stop developers from optimizing their games enough to comfortably beat it in the real world performance.

Series X was an excellent console, one of the best, but I'd still give the edge to PS5 which is cheaper and easier to manufacture and develop for. Optimization is linked to multiple factors, not just popularity. Series X has some bottlenecks. Optimizing a game on a console with some disadvantages (vs the competitor) can require much more work than a console with no bottlenecks.

FF14, which does seem to have been especially designed around PS5 (it was a true exclusive for a while) obviously required some extensive optimization work to get it to run as well or possibly better on Series X than PS5. That likely had to do with designing around PS5's narrow/fast GPU. If Series X had faster GPU clockrate than PS5 and didn't have split RAM speeds, optimization would have been a breeze. Magnus is reportedly faster than PS6 at EVERYTHING.

Series S is garbage. Hard carried by GamePass's value, otherwise you only had to pay an extra $100 for a console that is vastly superior.

More power won't mean squat if Sony has the commanding market-share which means developers will prioritize it over Xbox.

Xbox Series X is a good deal faster than the PS5... But for the most part, the difference in the real world is inconsequential/non-existent, which was always my expectation (And I made the claim) before the current generation hardware was even unveiled.