Ok just a quick run through of points...
- What is this inherent inefficiency you speak of? Can you elaborate? It is not something I've ever heard mentioned.
- Your second point contradicts your first. If 50% more CU performance is viable to inefficiencies, why would 6% extra performance not also be privy to the same thing?
- How did you arrive at the 204gb/s figure for the Esram, can you elaborate? Also you realise this is a very disinginuous claim. YES the bandwidth can be added together in that the DDR3 and Esram can function simultaneously, but this tells only a small part of the full story. The Esram still only accounts for a meagre 32mb of space. The DDR3 ram, which is the bulk of the memory (8GB) is still limited to only 68gb/s, whilst the PS4's GDDR5 ram has an entire 8GB with 176gb/s bandwidth. This is a misleading way to present the argument of bandwidth differences.
- How do you know you have 10% more cpu speed? You said you are unaware of the PS4's final specs, and rumours of a similar upclock have been floating around. It could also be argued that the XO has the more capable audio chip because the systems audio Kinect features are more demanding, something the PS4 does not have to cater to. Add to that, the PS4 does also have a (less capable) audio chip, along with a secondary custom chip (supposedly used for background processing). There's that to consider too.
- That's good that Microsoft understands GPGPU, but that does not take away from the inherent GPGPU customisations afforded to the PS4. The PS4 also has 6 additional compute units, which is a pretty hefty advantage in this field.
- This is factually wrong. With Onion plus Onion+ the PS4 also has 30gb/s bandwidth.